PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Why disarm civilians?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 01:48 AM on April 4, 2008 :
I will not get a gun because I feel alive; if you felt alive, you would not have (a) gun(s) either.

Actually, you have raised an interesting issue; you are an "ordinary, law-abiding citizen" as far as the united states is concerned. Citizens of the u.s. are trained to be reasonable, and consider senses a liability limited to only "personal conduct" in "personal space". So when american citizens socialize, they must disregard their feelings so that they do not appear to contradict or challenge the rule of the consensus mind. The fact that so many people have guns in the u.s. is only helping america become a hell-on-earth, but people will not acknowledge that they feel this on the "streets" because they will probably be shot!

I don't imply that all gun owners are murderers; I say people only have guns, in the first place, because they are going to be murderers someday. What use is a gun if you don't shoot somebody with it?

If you do not want to shoot and kill somebody, get rid of the gun; keep it around long enough and it will help you murder somebody. This is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.



What's wrong with target shooting, or cutting trees down with a M134, (If you don't know what that is ask.) and I don't think that I will be feeling very alive if some armed criminal kills me because I didn't have something to defend myself with.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:38 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Uses of a gun
Hunting
Scaring crooks out of your house
Defending against an invading army

Hunting: Killing animals for pleasure? Woo! As you may have guessed, I'm not a fan of hunting.

Scaring crooks out of your house: This one really doesn't make sense. Guns in themselves don't scare crooks away: we know this because otherwise there would be no house robberies. All this 'armed criminals killing me because I don't have a gun to defend myself with' is nonsense. Most criminals, casual or not, are not looking to add manslaughter/murder to their list of crimes. The only reason for which you would be harmed is if you pose a threat: for example, if you might have a gun somewhere in the house. If, on the other hand, they are looking to kill you, you having a gun is hardly going to dissuade  them from their goals because they will already be expecting you to have a gun.

Defending against invading armies: this is a fine way for Americans to waste their lives. If an army turns up fast enough that the general call to war (which allows those who want to fight to go and get properly armed and organised by people who have faaar more expertise than them) has not been sounded, they are simply going to overwhelm any 'citizens militia'. What's more, if an invading army knows that the citizens of a country will actively fight it then the simple answer is to kill the citizens as it goes, regardless of how armed they are.

Anything else? While I agree that the flat out immediate criminalisation of firearms is not the answer to Americas current gun problem, slowly working towards much tighter control can only help: by reducing the availability and therefore reducing the temptation.
(By 'temptation, I mean this... being bullied at school? Arguing with your neighbours? If you have a gun in the house, the temptation to simply solve your problems by killing someone is muuuuch higher, because it's much easier to do)

(Edited by iangb 4/15/2008 at 09:04 AM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 09:01 AM on April 15, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hunting is not always done for pleasure. I personally am against killing thing unnecessarily.

And if I understand you correctly, me pointing a 10 gauge shotgun at a home intruder is not going to make that home intruder back down?

And what if I have a steak knife. I hear that they kill just as completely when used to slit some one's throat.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 3:40 PM on April 16, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So legalising guns for general use is irrelevant for hunting. There are many other ways of animal control, if you are not planning on actively hunting for pleasure.

Aye, a shotgun would probably do it... but this assumes that
a) the home intruder is going to let you go get your weapon, arm and load it, and point it at their face
b) the home intruder does not have a friend you don't know about
c) the home intruder (or their friend) is not armed
If any of these are not the case and you go for a gun, you are going to end up in a whole lot more trouble than you started. There are worse things than being robbed.

And while a steak knife may have the same sort of lethality, it is only over a much shorter range. You're much less of a threat with one than with a 10 gauge shotgun, as you say - otherwise why don't you just use a steak knife to defend your house with?
And few people sleep with a steak knife in their bedroom cupboard...

Basically, if someone has entered your house you have several options. The smartest one, by far, of all of these is to phone the police, lock your door if it has a lock, and wait for them to leave. In the UK, at least, it is advised that you 'do not challenge a burgler directly' - if you try to scare them of, do it in a non-confrontational manner (ringing your doorbell, for example).

(Edited by iangb 4/16/2008 at 5:52 PM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 5:30 PM on April 16, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

You can through a knife, and the very range of a gun mans that I don't have to get that close to the home invader.

a) You are assuming that I don't keep the Shot gun next to my bed with ammo in on the night stand.
b) I my house there is only one way to get to the second floor, all that I have to do is sit at the top of the stairs and blow away anyone trying to get up there.
c) You are assuming that they will shoot first. If they are armed then they may not back down, however I can shoot them. Besides why would they let me live, if they were caught by the police I could identify them.

As for phoning the police, well it take a home invader about 30 seconds to kick down my bedroom door. SO all that the police can do is clean up the mess.

Why go for the door bell when I have an alarm that is much louder.

And Finally, did you know that you are 3 times more likely to have a home invasion while you are actually home in England as compared to America. The reason for this is that you are far more likely to get shot breaking into the home of an American.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:30 PM on April 21, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

iangb,
Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).

Also the 9 other supreme court decisions that say the police have no duty to protect you.

If you rely on the home intruder being a nice and wonderful person at heart, you can't go back and change your mind when they murder you and your family.

(Edited by Stunt_Pirate 4/21/2008 at 11:40 PM).
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 11:40 PM on April 21, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can through a knife, and the very range of a gun mans that I don't have to get that close to the home invader.

Hey, I was just reacting to your 'point it in their face' idea... and anyone who considers a steak knife to be a valid threatening weapon over any range has been watching too many Stephen Segal movies.

a) You are assuming that I don't keep the Shot gun next to my bed with ammo in on the night stand.
b) I my house there is only one way to get to the second floor, all that I have to do is sit at the top of the stairs and blow away anyone trying to get up there.
c) You are assuming that they will shoot first. If they are armed then they may not back down, however I can shoot them. Besides why would they let me live, if they were caught by the police I could identify them.

a) You are assuming you have woken up in time to do any of these things
b) So... what prevents them from just robbing your downstairs, same as if you'd locked the door on them?
c) Well, they are the ones coming into your house expecting to do violence (because you are a threat to them). If they do not back down, the simple 'I could just shoot them' phrase is... naive, at best. As for shooting you simply so you cannot identify them... I would guess that you live in a populated area? Would you really want to make a very loud and instantly recognisable noise where anyone could hear you, especially given that it makes your crime a much more serious one that is taken much more... vigorously?

As for phoning the police, well it take a home invader about 30 seconds to kick down my bedroom door. SO all that the police can do is clean up the mess.

Actually, this was my bad. Police recommendation is that you get out of your house, as if there was an uncontrollable fire in the house. Personal safety is paramount, personal (insured) possessions come a far second. Regardless... again, you are assuming that a home invader would be attempting to harm you for no apparent reason. I would suggest that should your home be invaded by someone who has the intent to harm you, you should get out of their way - it makes it even less likely for them to back down.

Why go for the door bell when I have an alarm that is much louder.
Meh, go for the burglar alarm, then. Is this relevant?

And Finally, did you know that you are 3 times more likely to have a home invasion while you are actually home in England as compared to America. The reason for this is that you are far more likely to get shot breaking into the home of an American.
Source, please? I'd be veeery interested in where you got that figure from, seeing as home invasion is not a registered crime in the UK. Speaking of statistics, though.... you are over 6 times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the USA than in the UK, and over 13 times more likely to be a victim of homicide by gun. source

Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).

Also the 9 other supreme court decisions that say the police have no duty to protect you.

How is this relevant? Anyway, it's not quite the same in the UK, as far as I am aware... though I can't find anything for or against.

If you rely on the home intruder being a nice and wonderful person at heart, you can't go back and change your mind when they murder you and your family.

When did I say I was expecting that? I simply said that I was expecting them not to be particularly malicious/bloodthirsty, because if they are, then I'm in a lot of trouble regardless of whether I have a gun or not.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 10:40 AM on April 22, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a) Alarm, remember?
b) At least he won't kill me, besides the only important thing in my how is my laptop, and that is in my room upstairs, and did I mention that he or they won't kill me, or at least I will go down fighting.
c) Wouldn't I want others to hear so that they will now know that there is something wrong? Maybe they will call the cops while I am sitting at the top of my steps (with the shotgun of course).

As for getting out of my house, one question, HOW? And I already gave a reason, no witnesses.

"Meh, go for the burglar alarm, then. Is this relevant?" You know it might be set, and if they get around it it could be assumed that they are the NSA or the CIA.

"home invasion is not a registered crime in the UK." Probably because it is so common that it would be useless to attempt to keep a record of it.

And I still say that the 10 gauge will work perfectly for stopping a blood thirsty criminals.  


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 02:12 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come-on people, get real! Are any of you aware of how scared and stupid you sound?

You are making it easier and easier for me to see the reason you have guns and I don't; you're scared, you're weak, you're selfish, and you're stupid.

Listen to yourselves, talking about defending your home against invasion! You sound like everyone in your neighborhood is your enemy! Who are you afraid of? How are you so weak that you need a gun for protection? What do you own that is worth killing for? Does not everyone else already posses everything of worth? Are you so selfish that you feel your life is the only life worth living?

I hope your houses do get invaded, I hope somebody tries to steal everything you own, and I hope you shoot and kill them! See how tough and secure you feel in your castle with all your guns when you realize it has become your private hell.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 6:57 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I echo forfunt1 here. You want to buy a shotgun so you can protect yourself in case someone breaks into your home, ignoring your alarm which has already gone off, just to steal your laptop?

That's... dire. As is this:
"home invasion is not a registered crime in the UK." Probably because it is so common that it would be useless to attempt to keep a record of it.

You do realise that your statement here is entirely baseless, entirely prejudiced, entirely stupid and entirely wrong?
To enlighten you, 'home invasion' is a registered offence in only some US states, Australia and New Zealand. It's on a parallel with 'burglary', to the extent that I can't see any difference between the two. For burglary comparisons, 12 people 1000 experience burglary of some sort per year, (source) however violence or threatening behaviour is only used in 10% of these incidents (source). In the US, on the other hand, 7.5 people per 1000 experienced a burglary ('home invasions' not included in this category, and for which statistics are very hard to find). Compare the ~2 times increased chance of burglary with the ~6 times increased chance of homicide, and you'll see that guns have by no means made the US safer.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 08:52 AM on April 29, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 6:57 PM on April 27, 2008 :
Come-on people, get real! Are any of you aware of how scared and stupid you sound?

You are making it easier and easier for me to see the reason you have guns and I don't; you're scared, you're weak, you're selfish, and you're stupid.

Listen to yourselves, talking about defending your home against invasion! You sound like everyone in your neighborhood is your enemy! Who are you afraid of? How are you so weak that you need a gun for protection? What do you own that is worth killing for? Does not everyone else already posses everything of worth? Are you so selfish that you feel your life is the only life worth living?

I hope your houses do get invaded, I hope somebody tries to steal everything you own, and I hope you shoot and kill them! See how tough and secure you feel in your castle with all your guns when you realize it has become your private hell.



Forfunt, I think I liked you better when you just came across as unable to form a coherent sentence. Now that you started actually using grammar you come across as even more of a misinformed idiot.

Do I live my life in fear? Not at all.
You on the other hand seem so completely afraid of everyone with guns that you aren't able to even think rationally on the subject.

Am I weak? This statement is worthless enough to not even deserve an answer.

Am I selfish? If you think that being willing to defend my life and my family's lives if it came to that is selfish, then yes, I am. Congratulations on not being willing to do so. I hope that you are never in a situation where you need to protect your family, I doubt your charitable attitude would be much comfort.

Am I stupid? Again, a worthless argument, especially coming from you.

Do I think everyone in my neighborhood is my enemy? No. However I do live in California and we do have quite a bit of gang activity, so I am not naive enough to believe that I am incapable of being robbed. Would I kill someone who was stealing my things, no. Not only is it illegal but I don't value property over life. Would I hesitate if they came after myself or my family, again no.

I would not make the decision to shoot someone who entered my house with violent intent, they would have made that decision for me. Would I regret that they decided to end their lives by attempting to end mine, yes I would. I would much rather live with that regret than let my family be killed because of my unwillingness to act.

 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 2:26 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

iangb,

I included the reference to that decision because it made clear that the only people obligated to protect a victim of violent crime is the victim, in America. Since you obviously didn't look up the case this is what occurred:

In the early morning hours of Sunday, 16 March 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house and Miriam Douglas who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro, hearing Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. The two residents climbed out their window onto the roof to wait. 19 minutes later they still heard Douglas' continuing screams and again called the police. They told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knifepoint, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

The supreme court ruled that the police had no obligation to come to the aid of Warren. But then again, not wanting to be raped or have your family raped is selfish, right Forfunt1?

 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 2:29 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stunt_Pirate, why do you continue to defend your self? You are stuck in your head, and all I hope to do is help you out before you kill someone, or get killed, all because you wouldn't feel what you were doing.

You say that you will defend your family from harm but you do not seem to remember who the family is.

Wake up and care about the family, before you and everyone like you have successfully killed off every enemy you have ever invented, because the family will almost entirely hate you by then, and the only friends you'll have left will be ready to kill you the moment you betray their expectations. Who will love you when all you know is how to trust, and you can't remember how it felt to care?

The family is not safe until it's children stop playing games by rules that require friends and enemies. (This is not a logical, or rational statement; this is a statement of how I see the world.)


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:38 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you really are not afraid, I suggest you let your actions speak instead of your words.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 9:27 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We obviously differ in opinion. Your's is not intrinsically more correct, just more idealistic.

You are obviously supporting a society based on love, which I fully support. I have nothing against anybody unless they pose a direct threat to either my life, the life of my family (I mean it in the literal sense), or anyone else being victimized by a criminal if I am present to prevent it.

Do you support having police forfunt? How about laws? Where do you draw the line for someone threatening your life or the life of your family? If someone had your family hostage at what point would you act? After they killed your parents? Brother? Sister? Wife? Child? You?

Do you value the life of a rapist over an innocent victim? How about a murderer over the life of a child? Or are you so removed from reality that you don't think it is possible for someone to kill you for no reason? Just because you don't consider someone your enemy does not prevent them from being one.
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 9:31 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nature makes no allowance for intrinsic-correctness; remember that correct status is determined by the negotiation of reasonable terms. I mean that i do not care for being (and hope I have not misled you to think that I ever have cared to be) correct; I say what I feel.

Love has meaning to me, and for this meaning I have no enemies. My love cannot be subject to any terms of patience or forgiveness, or any rule or order of reason/logic/rationale.

Prevention does not happen in the present, as there is no way to actually manifest expectation or doubt.

I do not support police; I uphold the law as I am sovereign.

If you felt like family, you would not ask me about scenarios where the family was in jeopardy because (like i do) you would  act in a way that afforded no fear of harm.

I do not value life; I feel that life is worth living, and there is no relative significance of worth, only equality.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 10:00 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

stunt_pirate: if you compare the likelyhood of burglary/home invasion with the likelyhood of homicide/homicide by gun in both the USA and the UK (see my post above), can you not see that allowing increased availability of firearms does not, in fact, help to protect the family at all?

There are some, very rare, cases where having a firearm of your own will benefit your family. But allowing your children and your neighbours easy access to those same firearms, and the harm that  can result from it, far outweighs those slight few cases.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 10:18 AM on April 30, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See, much better forfunt, you should stick to arguing like that. It is much more amusing.

Iangb,
As you have no way of finding the number of crimes prevented due to a gun being present, there is no way that you can claim that the presence of guns has not prevented crimes. That is a statistic that is not collected. In addition, criminals that are stopped fatally by responsible gun owners are merely listed as gun homicides, thus it is equally impossible to tell how many of the homicides were justified and prevented crime. Your assertion is therefore unsupported.

If you practice responsible ownership of a firearm  (which would not allow anyone but you access to it) then there is no chance that a child or neighbor will be able to hurt themselves, in addition to knowing not to.  


 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 8:10 PM on April 30, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As you have no way of finding the number of crimes prevented due to a gun being present, there is no way that you can claim that the presence of guns has not prevented crimes.

Firstly, by attempting to claim that my claim is impossible to prove, you've made your argument unfalsifiable: and therefore unscientific. Secondly, my claim is justifiable.
Link the first.
"Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose."

[link the second.
"Victims used firearms in 0.18% of all crimes recorded by the survey and in 0.83% of violent offenses. Firearm self-defense is rare compared with gun crimes (1987-1990)

link the third. "Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use. This result is consistent with findings from other private surveys and the National Crime Victimization Surveys"
Link the fourth.
Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.


If you practice responsible ownership of a firearm  (which would not allow anyone but you access to it) then there is no chance that a child or neighbor will be able to hurt themselves, in addition to knowing not to.  

You misunderstand me. If it is possible for you to get access to a gun, it is just as possible for a neighbour to get access to a (different) gun, and it is much easier for your child to get access to weaponry.

Furthermore... you claim I am naive in thinking that "all home invaders will not harm you?" What about assuming that all gun owners take responsible care of their weapons?


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 08:12 AM on May 1, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You made a claim that by comparing homicide rates in two completely different countries you could see that guns do not reduce crime. That statement had no support, as comparing two different countries crime statistics can only, at best, show correlation and not causation. I cannot prove the nonexistence of support for your argument, it falls to you to actually find support.


Your first source is frankly laughable.
A three month study of criminal records from not only one state, but just one city? If I lived in Atlanta Georgia 14 years ago, maybe this study would mean something. In fact I could site the same study and say that using firearms in home defense is 100% effective in preventing injury to the victim and 66.66% effective in stopping property theft.

The second source is 18 years old and proves absolutely nothing. All it shows is that 18 years ago, firearm self defense was rare compared to gun crimes. Does the study show how effective it was when firearm self-defense was used? No. How is this pertinent?

The next study is 12 years old, so congratulations on getting closer to 2008. It is 2008 by the way. Why would you use a phone survey to find out if criminal gun use is more common than self-defense? Lack of actual documentation perhaps? All this shows is that criminals are more likely to be armed. Well, they were 12 years ago, according to random people surveyed. Great way to find well informed people, by the way. You should try randomly phoning someone and asking them trivia. I'll bet it's 100% reliable. Even if it is accurate and relevant today, why would criminals being more likely to be armed be a reason to disarm the victims?

Okay, the next survey is only 9 years old, by far the closest one yet. How many people were surveyed? Doesn't say, so there is no way to tell if enough people were asked the questions to give an accurate representation of the entire population of the United States. What were the open ended questions? How did they eliminate bias? How were the judges selected? What were their views on private gun ownership? "Far more" is not a numerical statistic, thus not helpful. What about the gun self-defense specifically was "probably illegal?"

You are going to have to do better than those if you want to seem like your argument actually has support. I don't believe that all gun owners are responsible. I don't believe that all car drivers are responsible. I don't believe in banning guns or cars.


 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 4:26 PM on May 3, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You made a claim that by comparing homicide rates in two completely different countries you could see that guns do not reduce crime. That statement had no support, as comparing two different countries crime statistics can only, at best, show correlation and not causation. I cannot prove the nonexistence of support for your argument, it falls to you to actually find support.

At risk of going on a slight tangent... no cause can be 'proven'. Causation is accepted when a sufficiently high level of relevant evidence is accumulated and evidence to the contrary is shown to be outweighed and/or irrelevant. And showing the correlation between increased homicide rates/homicides by firearm with legality of firearm in a specific country is very strong supporting evidence for showing such a causation. To look at it again, in 2006 (as my old date was for 1996 and you seem to like modern surveys, despite very little change in gun legislation over the past couple of decades), just under 15000 (14990) people were killed in the US, 67% of which were killed by firearms. Source for all US data. This puts the chance of being killed in the USA at 4.5 (per 1000 people per year), and the chance of being killed by a gun at 3.0. Compare this to the values for European countries (here, you can see that there are other countries that have higher rates but these are either developing countries or countries undergoing turmoil), all of which have strct gun laws, and you can see that the US is much less safe than you hope having guns would make it.
You mentioned in a post above that death figures did not take into account 'justified' homicide, thus rendering all such comparisons pointless. Luckilly, the FBI figures for 2006 do - of the 14900 killings, 571 total were 'justified' and carried out by a firearm - less than 4% of the total killings, making negligable difference to the figures (especially when compared with the large difference between the US and Europe).

That's pretty strong evidence.

Mmm, I'll agree the first source was poor, although the conclusions do show slight evidence for my case. Bear in mind for all of these four that there may well be work carried out in the main experiment/survey that are not included in the extended abstract and the abstract itself will be much expanded, thus the questions you ask of the later surveys are entirely answerable.

The fact that firearm crime massively outweighs firearm self-defence (second survey) shows that guns, as a whole, are undesirable. It isn't particularly strong evidence for my case because it doesn't make the distinction between 'regular' guns and guns that would not have been able to be acquired for the purposes of crime had there been tighter firearms restriction. However, it is evidence to a certain extent: if both gun crime and firearms defence were lowered by even slightly similar fractions (as would be the case were tighter gun control very gradually introduced) then the vastly larger gun crime would suffer more - a good thing, I think you would agree.

You completely miss the point for the third/fourth surveys. Of course there is lack of proper documentation for firearms self-defence, otherwise this would be a much more clear-cut argument. I refer you here for an entire critical review on the subject, which recommends much more stringent surveying, as current data is still inconclusive on the issue (although it still supports my case to a certain extent). As there is not officially recorded data, this survey was carried out - phoning people and asking if they personally had experienced (personal) gun crime or acted in self-defence with a firearm. The open-ended questions ensured that a wider range of answers could be attained - this cuts down on false results because people haven't experienced the exact situation described. As such, the survey is an excellent method for attaining any figures that have not been officially recorded (such as gun intimidations by either criminals or would-be victims), in many different capacities (not just "i was shot by a gun", but "i was shot by a gun when outside/in my home/at a shop/other).

I think you'll find that this is still all evidence for my case. You're going to have to provide some conflicting evidence of your own - for example, proof that all criminal use of weaponry would still be carried out were firearms harder to obtain. The burden of proof for that one is on you.

I don't believe that all gun owners are responsible. I don't believe that all car drivers are responsible. I don't believe in banning guns or cars.

I've often heard the comparison here between guns and cars. It grates. Cars, you buy for the specific purpose of transport. It's very hard to purposefully menace someone with a car - pretty much all automobile-related injuries/deaths are through accident alone. Furthermore, legitimate car use far outweighs dangerous car use. Guns, on the other hand, are made and bought for a specific purpose - to shoot things. The two items are incomparable.

(Edited by iangb 5/4/2008 at 7:30 PM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 7:24 PM on May 4, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ever heard of “ceteris paribus?” It means all else equal and is the very basic element of finding causation. The United States is very, very different from Europe. An accurate comparison of the two would have to take into account every single difference and disprove they had an effect. Good luck with that.

If you want to read a counter-argument; here ya go:
Link


Using common sense, it should be fairly apparent that making guns illegal will not make them magically disappear. It will not make a criminal stop and say; “oh no, the gun I was going to use to kill this person with is illegal, maybe I shouldn’t use it.”

If you’re so keen on using other countries to prove your point about America, look at Russia. Do you really think the criminals committing all those murders are buying a hunting rifle, waiting 5 years, buying a semi-automatic weapon and logging every bullet used with the police? The law says they have to, they must be. Everyone knows criminals obey the law. I would assume they have murderers telling the police where and why they discharged their firearms and thus being arrested immediately. I haven’t looked it up but I know laws prevent crime. I wonder why their homicide rate is so high if it is so easy to find the murderers? Weird.  

My point with the cars was this:  “responsibility” is immeasurable. Making it impossible for anyone to get a gun will not stop irresponsible people from acting irresponsibly. Accidental deaths from cars are from irresponsibility, as are accidental deaths from firearms.

 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 12:49 PM on May 5, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How does common sense have any baring on the issue of gun ownership, or how guns are used?

Plenty of people argue that their privilege and pleasure are at risk of being taken, and for fear of this loss, they secure their status and property by threatening injury or death to any people that would dare to deprive them of their selfish entitlement. If there is no feeling for the life or heath of a person that comes in between another person and their property, then their actions are all based on thought- nonsense. Notions of ownership, or claim, are the tools and excuses that selfish fools use to take the place of feelings or senses that would have them act with care for life before value of property.

Statistics don't mean a damn thing to the kids that get shot and killed because some idiot capitalist, or fascist property owner, decided entitlements are somehow worth more then life!

Every action by any person involving a firearm is a crime!
Bring people back to life, I dare you! Undue the injuries to their bodies caused by the bullets you fire at them. Then explain to them why you thought it was okay to shoot them, when you could have accepted them as family long before you decided to murder them for trying to rob you. Can you not see, the gun is not a solution to any problem! Problems do not have solutions! Only idiots get caught up in these loops of trying to get somewhere from nowhere.

i appeal to anybody that has a firearm to protect something either for themselves or anyone else (like kids in the military); Don't kill to protect your property! If you do, you are a murderer, and the only way for justice to happen after you have killed to save your stuff, is for you to die for the life you ended. These senseless kids going to far away places dressed up like clowns, armed with all sorts of terrible killing devises, and using them with only the discretion they are ordered or trained to use, are damn lucky they are not shot the moment they step back onto american soil for being heartless murders and a threat to anything alive, because whenever the magic words are spoken they have to shoot, and have no permission to feel.

Disarming the 'civilians' of america is not going to help anybody. The only hope for people is an awakening, otherwise we will all kill each other because everyone will be a stranger to somebody else, part of some family other then the whole.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:52 PM on May 5, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I find interesting is that in Iraq the typical family is allowed to have a AK47 for home defense, yet here in America you can barely get your hands on an M9 without being considered a gun nut.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:00 PM on May 6, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The people who value property over human life are precisely the people that I own a firearm to protect my family against.
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 10:34 PM on May 6, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ever heard of “ceteris paribus?” It means all else equal and is the very basic element of finding causation. The United States is very, very different from Europe. An accurate comparison of the two would have to take into account every single difference and disprove they had an effect. Good luck with that.

Like I said, my evidence is only strong supporting evidence, not proof. You ain't going to get conclusive proof for a long time yet. I notice you haven't included any proof for your side of the argument, however... merely sarcasm and 'common sense'.

With regard to increasing gun control, I fully agree that slamming down tighter regulations will help no-one but criminals. But slow introduction of such regulation and making the effort to change Americas cultural outlook on guns can and will.

What I find interesting is that in Iraq the typical family is allowed to have a AK47 for home defense, yet here in America you can barely get your hands on an M9 without being considered a gun nut.

Yes, exactly! We should be more like Iraq!
...Here Silverstar successfully makes a point for my side.

The people who value property over human life are precisely the people that I own a firearm to protect my family against.

...so someone comes to rob your house, so you shoot them. Isn't that placing your own property above human life?


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 8:18 PM on May 11, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I am trying to say is that we let the Iraqis have AK47, even though they are shooting at us, yet in America you have to go through hoops just to get a hand gun. Even through law abiding citizens aren’t at war with America.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:00 PM on May 14, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your comparison is hugely invalid. Iraq is far from a 'developed country' such as the US or Europe. Currently, un control is _not_ a major issue in Iraq - because the illegal arms availability is so massive, if nothing else. Iraq is impossible to police to such an extent. America is not.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 4:57 PM on May 14, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So people in developed countries should live in a police state?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:50 PM on May 15, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you suggesting that we should have a police force similar to Iraqs? If not, please don't twist my words into that which is blatantly false.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 5:12 PM on May 15, 2008 | IP
Jabba66

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 6:57 PM on April 27, 2008 :
Come-on people, get real! Are any of you aware of how scared and stupid you sound?


Do you have any idea how scared and stupid you sound?  "Aaahhhh, I don't wanna own a gun.  I could get shot with it!  Ahhh haahh haahh!!!".  Why don't you get real?

You are making it easier and easier for me to see the reason you have guns and I don't; you're scared, you're weak, you're selfish, and you're stupid.


How can you correlate gun ownership with being weak, selfish, or stupid?

Listen to yourselves, talking about defending your home against invasion!


What, crime doesn't happen now?

You sound like everyone in your neighborhood is your enemy! Who are you afraid of? How are you so weak that you need a gun for protection?


What if the invader is a 7th Degree Blackbelt?  What if the victim is old or physically disabled?  Is that their problem?  You are the heartless one.

What do you own that is worth killing for? Does not everyone else already posses everything of worth? Are you so selfish that you feel your life is the only life worth living?


My life.  The life of my family.  My home.  My wife's sexy body.  Do you have a wife?  If someone broke into your house and raped your wife, wouldn't you wanna shoot them?  Why do you feel that you should die just so some scumbag crook could live?

I hope your houses do get invaded, I hope somebody tries to steal everything you own, and I hope you shoot and kill them!


What's so wrong with that?  Of course I'd feel bad, but it's their fault.  Anyhow, I hope your home gets invaded, I hope someone tries to feel everything you own, and I hope you realize how stupid your stance on guns is when they beat you, rape your wife, and kill your kids.  

See how tough and secure you feel in your castle with all your guns when you realize it has become your private hell.


I would feel bad if I shot somebody, but I wouldn't regret it.  They would not have been shot if they had not broken into my home.





-------
Mikiyuna! Pasta mo rulya! Do bata gee mwaa tusawa!
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 02:56 AM on May 25, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If someone broke into your house and raped your wife, wouldn't you wanna shoot them?

This, in a phrase, is the reason that gun control should be tightened.

If someone raped your wife, wouldn't you want to shoot them?
If someone stole your TV, wouldn't you want to shoot them?
If someone let their dog bark loudly all night, wouldn't you want to shoot them?
If a bunch of kids at school had been giving you grief, wouldn't you want to shoot them?

Owning a gun means that you now have the means to carry out this temptation. I can't think of a single situation where this condoning of 'personal-vigilanteism' is a good thing.

(Edited by iangb 5/25/2008 at 06:25 AM).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 06:23 AM on May 25, 2008 | IP
Jabba66

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 06:23 AM on May 25, 2008 :
If someone broke into your house and raped your wife, wouldn't you wanna shoot them?

This, in a phrase, is the reason that gun control should be tightened.

If someone raped your wife, wouldn't you want to shoot them?
If someone stole your TV, wouldn't you want to shoot them?
If someone let their dog bark loudly all night, wouldn't you want to shoot them?
If a bunch of kids at school had been giving you grief, wouldn't you want to shoot them?

Owning a gun means that you now have the means to carry out this temptation. I can't think of a single situation where this condoning of 'personal-vigilanteism' is a good thing.

(Edited by iangb 5/25/2008 at 06:25 AM).



So?  You could carry out the temptation just as easily with a rock, a knife, a fire poker, a lead pipe, or even your fists.  Also, I never said the last three.  That's why you shouldn't smoke crack.


-------
Mikiyuna! Pasta mo rulya! Do bata gee mwaa tusawa!
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 8:54 PM on May 26, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 5:12 PM on May 15, 2008 :
Are you suggesting that we should have a police force similar to Iraqs? If not, please don't twist my words into that which is blatantly false.


No I am saying that I should be allowed to own a gun(s), assuming that I don't have a criminal record, or am insane (not mentally retarded, and not prone to be emotionally unstable).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:19 PM on May 27, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So?  You could carry out the temptation just as easily with a rock, a knife, a fire poker, a lead pipe, or even your fists.  Also, I never said the last three.  That's why you shouldn't smoke crack.

No-where near as easilly. And it's that ease of use that makes guns so dangerous. One squeeze of the trigger, and all your problems are gone. Of course, they're often replaced by some other ones, but that's not obvious to someone in a killing mood. With your fists, you at least have more time to change your mind.
And if you doubt the last three, you should take a look at causes of domestic homicides over the past few years.

No I am saying that I should be allowed to own a gun(s), assuming that I don't have a criminal record, or am insane (not mentally retarded, and not prone to be emotionally unstable).
That came from no-where... In that case, you still haven't justified this statement.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 7:33 PM on May 27, 2008 | IP
Jabba66

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 7:33 PM on May 27, 2008 :
So?  You could carry out the temptation just as easily with a rock, a knife, a fire poker, a lead pipe, or even your fists.  Also, I never said the last three.  That's why you shouldn't smoke crack.

No-where near as easilly. And it's that ease of use that makes guns so dangerous. One squeeze of the trigger, and all your problems are gone. Of course, they're often replaced by some other ones, but that's not obvious to someone in a killing mood. With your fists, you at least have more time to change your mind.
And if you doubt the last three, you should take a look at causes of domestic homicides over the past few years.

No I am saying that I should be allowed to own a gun(s), assuming that I don't have a criminal record, or am insane (not mentally retarded, and not prone to be emotionally unstable).
That came from no-where... In that case, you still haven't justified this statement.


And do you think the average gun  owner is a savage piece of garbage that would carry out these temptations?



-------
Mikiyuna! Pasta mo rulya! Do bata gee mwaa tusawa!
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 8:55 PM on June 1, 2008 | IP
Jabba66

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Forfunt1 -  I feel like a genius arguing with you!


-------
Mikiyuna! Pasta mo rulya! Do bata gee mwaa tusawa!
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 9:04 PM on June 1, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, but if just one is, then it is too much.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 9:05 PM on June 1, 2008 | IP
Jabba66

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 9:05 PM on June 1, 2008 :
No, but if just one is, then it is too much.



If one guy is a knife murderer, then we should ban knives, huh?



-------
Mikiyuna! Pasta mo rulya! Do bata gee mwaa tusawa!
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 6:29 PM on June 5, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If that were plausible/possible and knives did not have other legitimate uses, then yes.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 8:43 PM on June 7, 2008 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If that were plausible/possible and knives did not have other legitimate uses, then yes.


Who's going to determine what "legitimate" is? You? How many people would have need of this "legitimate" use to prevent it's ban?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:02 AM on June 18, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I refer you to the UK system of gun control, where you must provide a valid reason for owning a gun - self defence is not considered a valid reason.




-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 8:37 PM on June 18, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 8:43 PM on June 7, 2008 :
If that were plausible/possible and knives did not have other legitimate uses, then yes.


I guess that we won't be having anymore steaks then, huh? And, what are you supposed to do if someone breaks into your how with the intent on killing you, or if you are on a sidewalk and can not run very fast or very far



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:43 PM on June 18, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you've failed to understand the meaning of the word 'plausible'.

The easiest answer is: don't get yourself into such a situation. The more pragmatic answer is: do what you can to get yourself out of harms way. Believing that, because you have a gun, you will automatically walk away from confronting a violent criminal will only lead to more innocent deaths.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 12:19 PM on June 19, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If only all those murdered people had taken your advice and not gotten themselves senselessly killed. You should really start spreading your message to victims' families, really get the word out on this wonderful self-defense strategy.

"If only your daughter had gotten herself out of harms way, she wouldn't be raped and dead now. Now you know better. Don't be stupid like she was."

I can only imagine what the response will be like from the criminals...

"Yeah, I was totally going to kill him, but then he just started trying to get away. I was so surprised that I didn't murder him. I don't know what happened, all of a sudden people stopped getting themselves into situations where I could break into their houses at night and murder their families."
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 04:11 AM on June 30, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If only all those murdered people had taken your advice and not gotten themselves senselessly killed.

Link

If only, indeed. Unfortunately, you missed my point more or less entirely. Have a look at my link, and tell me: had there been more gun control in Kentucky, would these people still have died?


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 09:50 AM on June 30, 2008 | IP
CanadianPie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think most of you are getting sidetracked.

I think the arguments for gun-bans and the like are particularly weak in this thread. I have heard better arguments and I was hoping to find something new. I do not wish to belittle the posters here, but a lot of the arguments here seem to be inbred copies of real points made by other people.

The arguments for the right to bear arms here seem better, though may appear paranoid.

I will make a list of arguments that I feel are valid, but before that, please allow me to discuss what has been said here.

By BGC TODAY

"Has anyone ever heard of anything called supply and demand. If so, you should also know that there is a correlation between those two. When there is more demand to guns, there will be more in production, thus some of the guns that will be manufactured will end up in the hands of people who will be the ones that break in to your house. Then you will need to buy another one to protect yourself. And that will be the start of a paradox cycle. Do not forget that we should be trying to get rid of guns, not to find excuses to spread them around."

A paradox is a true (or seemingly true) statement or group of statements which lead to a contradiction. The explanation does not clarify how a paradox is created. There seems to be no contradiction in people buying guns.

Why should we be trying to get rid of guns? Please be as unemotional about it as you can.

By forfunt1

The second amendment does not include the word "gun" because rights are not defined by the specific ways in which they seem to manifest; the right is the way an allowance is made naturally, not the thing humans privilege themselves by virtue of the allowance.

'Bearing arms" is an expression of the way people respond to the influence and consequence of non-violent acts for self preservation that harm or end another life.

A citizen of the united states has a responsibility that comes with the privilege of gun ownership.

As I see it, a gun is not worth keeping, and is not worth the resources spent in production. There is no such thing as a fair fight involving a firearm. The only way to rectify the inequity of the foolish abuse of the second amendment that made reason enough of an excuse for the development of firearms, is to call on the sensibility of citizens to destroy all weapons designed for selfish entitlement and privileged advantage. In this way we take a step toward a life of freedom from fear of our non-natural disadvantages invented by a society that wills not for equality of life."


Before I go through what you have said, I would like to say that I had trouble understanding your particular posts, forfunt1. The point of language, as far as I understand it, is to use words to convey whatever you have in mind and wish to communicate. Without sounding too condescending, I really felt that you were using big words and complicated sentence structurization to wow or confuse the argument or for any purpose that is not the suggested reason for complex language; preciseness and specification.

The un-atonomical or un-heraldry meaning of arms is "weaponry," with an emphasis for "bearing arms" as firearms. Historically, I think though I am not sure, that bearing arms means taking a position of offense or defense in a violent fashion.

There is no specification as to what responsibility or responsibilities you are referring to.

You may feel that guns are not worth it; you may feel that the production of guns is not worth it; you can say that there is nothing fair about a fight involving guns; you can say that bearing arms is a selfish and self-entitlement issue. That's your opinion of guns and the people who use them; not reasons for which the government can make ownership a punishable offense. If you feel you have a valid reason, please comment clearly and concisely.

By forfunt1

"I will not repeat myself. Read what I wrote, and please do not confuse what I mean by being an idiot."

Ad hominem is unnecessary. Unwillingness to further clarify your point is counterproductive.

By iangb

"Hunting: Killing animals for pleasure? Woo! As you may have guessed, I'm not a fan of hunting.

Scaring crooks out of your house: This one really doesn't make sense. Guns in themselves don't scare crooks away: we know this because otherwise there would be no house robberies. All this 'armed criminals killing me because I don't have a gun to defend myself with' is nonsense. Most criminals, casual or not, are not looking to add manslaughter/murder to their list of crimes. The only reason for which you would be harmed is if you pose a threat: for example, if you might have a gun somewhere in the house. If, on the other hand, they are looking to kill you, you having a gun is hardly going to dissuade  them from their goals because they will already be expecting you to have a gun.

Defending against invading armies: this is a fine way for Americans to waste their lives. If an army turns up fast enough that the general call to war (which allows those who want to fight to go and get properly armed and organised by people who have faaar more expertise than them) has not been sounded, they are simply going to overwhelm any 'citizens militia'. What's more, if an invading army knows that the citizens of a country will actively fight it then the simple answer is to kill the citizens as it goes, regardless of how armed they are.

Anything else? While I agree that the flat out immediate criminalisation of firearms is not the answer to Americas current gun problem, slowly working towards much tighter control can only help: by reducing the availability and therefore reducing the temptation.
(By 'temptation, I mean this... being bullied at school? Arguing with your neighbours? If you have a gun in the house, the temptation to simply solve your problems by killing someone is muuuuch higher, because it's much easier to do)"


Personal feelings about hunting have little to do with whether or not the government should make firearm ownership a punishable offense.

The reasoning in the second paragraph is flawed. To say that "we know crooks aren't afraid of guns because otherwise there would be no robberies" doesn't imply any observation, research, or calculation. The paragraph implies that it is common knowledge when you have not presented any evidence for it; the paragraph implies robbers are not afraid of people wielding firearms at them as a result of the faulty reasoning for which you have not presented evidence. You further insist on the intentions of criminals and yet provide no evidence or citation. If you feel that having a gun would impose harm on yourself, if you feel that you would be safer not having one, that is up to you. It is not a reason, however, for the government to make ownership a punishable offense. Without getting too personal, I will also say that I disagree on a practical level; and that whether or not the criminal has the intention to harm me, there is nothing stupid nor nonsensical about taking valid precautions to ensure my survival; there is, however, something a little nonsensical on counting on the friendliness and kindness of every single person alive that you do not know.

A reiteration of a specific part: "What's more, if an invading army knows that the citizens of a country will actively fight it then the simple answer is to kill the citizens as it goes, regardless of how armed they are."

That is counting on the intentions of strangers again and not a reason for which the government to make ownership a punishable offense.

As for your last paragraph: yes, you would definitely limit the way to legally get a firearm. Please specify how this limits a criminal.

By ianb

"Aye, a shotgun would probably do it... but this assumes that
a) the home intruder is going to let you go get your weapon, arm and load it, and point it at their face
b) the home intruder does not have a friend you don't know about
c) the home intruder (or their friend) is not armed
If any of these are not the case and you go for a gun, you are going to end up in a whole lot more trouble than you started. There are worse things than being robbed.

And while a steak knife may have the same sort of lethality, it is only over a much shorter range. You're much less of a threat with one than with a 10 gauge shotgun, as you say - otherwise why don't you just use a steak knife to defend your house with?
And few people sleep with a steak knife in their bedroom cupboard...

Basically, if someone has entered your house you have several options. The smartest one, by far, of all of these is to phone the police, lock your door if it has a lock, and wait for them to leave. In the UK, at least, it is advised that you 'do not challenge a burgler directly' - if you try to scare them of, do it in a non-confrontational manner (ringing your doorbell, for example)."


The list of potential happenings if a robber came into your house is a complete sidetrack of whether or not the government should make ownership a punishable offense.

I agree with the last paragraph, I would also probably choose not to pursue a fight. However, that is my personal choosing, and the government should not have the right to take that decision for me. And whilst I am not anti-police, I certainly don't think that having faith in them is the smartest decision.

By forfunt1

"Come-on people, get real! Are any of you aware of how scared and stupid you sound?

You are making it easier and easier for me to see the reason you have guns and I don't; you're scared, you're weak, you're selfish, and you're stupid.

Listen to yourselves, talking about defending your home against invasion! You sound like everyone in your neighborhood is your enemy! Who are you afraid of? How are you so weak that you need a gun for protection? What do you own that is worth killing for? Does not everyone else already posses everything of worth? Are you so selfish that you feel your life is the only life worth living?"


Please explain how this merits the government the right to make ownership a punishable offense.

I wish I could have gone through all of the comments, especially the ones I consider to be less than valid in the category of pro-gun ownership; but alas, I do not have the will to donate that much consecutive time to this subject.

The argument that I know of which is valid for gun-bans is the following: gun ownership being a punishable offense leads to easier convictions of  known criminals who often evade prison time due to gang membership, lack of witnesses, and lack of evidence. However, this argument does not surpass, in the question of importance, the right for civilians to bear arms and to defend oneself.

One last bit.

By iangb

"If only, indeed. Unfortunately, you missed my point more or less entirely. Have a look at my link, and tell me: had there been more gun control in Kentucky, would these people still have died?"

I do not know. I think it is a bit fantastical to think that gun-limitations would have somehow limited this man who pre-meditated the murder of his co-workers and his suicide. I think a "gun-totting," as they say, co-worker would have had a greater chance at stopping the murderer than an unarmed one.

(Edited by CanadianPie 7/5/2008 at 11:20 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:06 PM on July 5, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The reasoning in the second paragraph is flawed. To say that "we know crooks aren't afraid of guns because otherwise there would be no robberies" doesn't imply any observation, research, or calculation. The paragraph implies that it is common knowledge when you have not presented any evidence for it; the paragraph implies robbers are not afraid of people wielding firearms at them as a result of the faulty reasoning for which you have not presented evidence. You further insist on the intentions of criminals and yet provide no evidence or citation. If you feel that having a gun would impose harm on yourself, if you feel that you would be safer not having one, that is up to you. It is not a reason, however, for the government to make ownership a punishable offense. Without getting too personal, I will also say that I disagree on a practical level; and that whether or not the criminal has the intention to harm me, there is nothing stupid nor nonsensical about taking valid precautions to ensure my survival; there is, however, something a little nonsensical on counting on the friendliness and kindness of every single person alive that you do not know.

The reasoning is by contradiction - examining the results were the statement to be correct. If guns were effective at scaring off criminals then there would be no casual robberies, which is blatantly not the case. I note that throughout your post you pick holes in lack of citation while not actually citing anything yourself - I would suggest that, shuold these arguments appear 'inferior' to you, you start a new topic with your arguments in and we will either tear them to shreds or agree with your points.

A reiteration of a specific part: "What's more, if an invading army knows that the citizens of a country will actively fight it then the simple answer is to kill the citizens as it goes, regardless of how armed they are."

That is counting on the intentions of strangers again and not a reason for which the government to make ownership a punishable offense.
Aren't you equally guilty in judging the intention of strangers? For example, you assume that someone will read your post.
Although I dislike the use of 'common sense' as a debating tool, there are occasions where it is the only relevant one, especially if tempered with a fair amount of logic.

As for your last paragraph: yes, you would definitely limit the way to legally get a firearm. Please specify how this limits a criminal.
Prohibition of any item reduces total availability of said item. This is guaranteed to have a knock-on effect: if for the only reason that most guns are initially made legally so reducing gun output at a factory level will affect availability on a criminal level.
I also believe that a significant number of crimes are carried out with legal weaponry: so far, no-one has shown me any relevant data on the topic.

The list of potential happenings if a robber came into your house is a complete sidetrack of whether or not the government should make ownership a punishable offense.
Not as such - it was relevant to the amount of gun use for self defence vs the amount of illegal gun use. If illegal gun use outweighs gun use for self defence (which it does, as far as I am aware... look at my pubmed survey) then gun control is more likely to affect illegal gun use more than legal, even if it affects illegal use by a smaller percentage.

I do not know. I think it is a bit fantastical to think that gun-limitations would have somehow limited this man who pre-meditated the murder of his co-workers and his suicide. I think a "gun-totting," as they say, co-worker would have had a greater chance at stopping the murderer than an unarmed one.
Really? If you read the articles surrounding the story, the man got into an argument, went home, got his gun and then shot everyone. If he hadn't had a gun, he wouldn't have been able to do that - by the time he acquired one he would have calmed down.
Yes, I'm predicting the intentions of others. So are you, however.

This wasn't for me, but...
Why should we be trying to get rid of guns? Please be as unemotional about it as you can.
Criminal gun use far outweighs gun use for self defence. Cutting down on legal ownership will have a proportional (reduced) effect on illegal ownership. Unless this proportionality is tiny, gun control will affect more criminal gun use than self-defence gun use (in pure number terms), so more lives will  be benefited as a result.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 7:03 PM on July 6, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from iangb at 7:03 PM on July 6, 2008 :
The reasoning is by contradiction - examining the results were the statement to be correct. If guns were effective at scaring off criminals then there would be no casual robberies, which is blatantly not the case. I note that throughout your post you pick holes in lack of citation while not actually citing anything yourself - I would suggest that, shuold these arguments appear 'inferior' to you, you start a new topic with your arguments in and we will either tear them to shreds or agree with your points.


Again, one cannot prove the non-existence of evidence to support your case. If you cannot provide support for your arguments, logically it cannot be assumed to exist. Human nature is to fear death, logically criminals would fear guns due to increased risk of death. Look up Kennesaw, Georgia or "Gun Town USA," mandatory firearm ownership reduced its crime rate even with an increasing population.





Prohibition of any item reduces total availability of said item. This is guaranteed to have a knock-on effect: if for the only reason that most guns are initially made legally so reducing gun output at a factory level will affect availability on a criminal level.
I also believe that a significant number of crimes are carried out with legal weaponry: so far, no-one has shown me any relevant data on the topic.


The fact that no one has been able to show you relevant data that would provide support for your assumption, should tell you something about your assumption. Name one ban that has reduced crime. Banning guns will only accomplish one thing, giving criminals greater confidence knowing that their victims are not legally allowed to defend themselves. The fact that you are unable to defend yourself does not give you the right to dictate that others should be so helpless.  

]Not as such - it was relevant to the amount of gun use for self defence vs the amount of illegal gun use. If illegal gun use outweighs gun use for self defence (which it does, as far as I am aware... look at my pubmed survey) then gun control is more likely to affect illegal gun use more than legal, even if it affects illegal use by a smaller percentage.


You have yet to provide any relevant data to support your argument that guns used for defense or brandished to dissuade an attacker are outweighed by illegal use. You have also shown absolutely no data on the guns owned legally being used more frequently in crimes than self-defense.

Really? If you read the articles surrounding the story, the man got into an argument, went home, got his gun and then shot everyone. If he hadn't had a gun, he wouldn't have been able to do that - by the time he acquired one he would have calmed down.
Yes, I'm predicting the intentions of others. So are you, however.


From what I read their was no indication whatsoever of where the gun had come from. Please site where you found this information.


Criminal gun use far outweighs gun use for self defence. Cutting down on legal ownership will have a proportional (reduced) effect on illegal ownership. Unless this proportionality is tiny, gun control will affect more criminal gun use than self-defence gun use (in pure number terms), so more lives will  be benefited as a result.


As you have shown nothing to support your argument, it is not valid. You still have yet to show data that banning guns will reduce crime.



 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 03:56 AM on July 7, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you look back through this topic, I have shown large amounts of data that criminal gun use outweighs gun use for self-defence.

This shows that enforcement of gun control laws is valid.

The rest of the data is your to provide: I have provided an argument grounded in common sense (because I cannot find data on it) your reply is merely 'but you have no data!' when the same is true of your side. I have some grounds for my side, the onus for data is on you.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 07:17 AM on July 7, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.