LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis is not a debate.Originally Posted by ik9000
This is not a debate.
TBH I would probably own a gun and keep it at a range purely for sport and enjoyment if it was as easy as it is in the US, but would still prefer for them to be as regulated as they currently are.
nichomach (19-06-2017)
Just <Off topic comment removed> Moving toward to on-topic, if the US did decided to hold an enquiry after a mass shooting outage, would someone like Trump sit on a report in the same way the Tories did with their report on fire risks to tall buildings after the Lakanal fire in Camberwell.
Last edited by peterb; 20-06-2017 at 03:14 PM. Reason: Removed off topic comment
No, but when a large number of people start abusing their 'right' to own guns, then you have to start restricting them or more people will die. No different to changing the road laws if too many people have car crashes.
Depends what laws prevented the cops from showing up.
But yes, every single individual should be protected by government. That is the point. People may forfeit that protection through illegal activity, but otherwise every single individual should be afforded that same protection.
If you say so... You obviously read every single word of each of the studies, rather than selectiovely quoting short paragraphs that did nothing to illustrate either point, right?
Oh wait...
I maintain the assertion that the reason you've never heard a convincing argument for gun control is that you don't listen to the arguments presented.
How ya gonna shoot someone without a gun, then?
Do you have magic fingers, or something?
No gun = no mass shooting. Simple logic.
You said Arizona had a sharp decline in violent crime because of the new gun laws... the same Arizona that had a 13% increase in violent crime and a 12% increase in murder just a couple of years ago... Arizona, in the same America that has seen mass shootings rise from one or two a year to dozens, if not hundreds (depending on definition) each and every year.
By contrast, other countries with massive ownership and no carry permitted have astonishingly lower crime rates.
Prove it, then.
Walk around unarmed.
Prove this lack of fear.
Quite simply, we each would love guns again, but we also recognise that the public are too stupid and irresponsible to be trusted with them. Therefore it is safer for all if they remain banned.
You'd love to have guns again? Really? Why? If gun crime wasn't a thing (hellllooooooo Cotswolds) the only reason to own a gun would be for farming purposes (and even then that's obviously highly debatable), so what enjoyable purpose could there be for owning a high-powered machine of fear and death? What exactly is the attraction - people feel powerless in their day-to-day lives and feel a need to supplement their lack of power with a substitute? The whole thing is macabre and, quite frankly, insane.
I said have.
I never said anything about everyone walking around armed to the teeth on a daily basis.
What you say pretty much illustrates my point (albeit, in a seriously dramatic fashion), though that the few people who cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with firearms are reason enough to ban them for the many. A point given further value when you consider how many incidents involve weapons that were owned perfectly legally, technically speaking.
As for the purpose - Sporting, mainly, same as owning archery equipment, slings, swords, polearms and the like, all of which I currently do own and with all of which I practice.
I also worked as an armourer at one stage and my appreciation for certain firearms goes beyond any nostalgic attachment to having carried them, into the realms of engineering appreciation.
You also don't seem to have considered the merit in museums, collectors and general historic appreciation, for things such as a Baker Rifle or Brown Bess musket...
Once again, I am not in the slightest bit against the principles of gun ownership any more than I am against owning a stupidly fast road vehicle (which I also own), but I do recognise how often people misuse them.
Historic value - fine.
Sporting? Go play football instead of wielding a weapon capable of killing people. Why should people have their lives risked because you (or whoever) fancy a bit of sport?
Carry them into war. Use them to scare off predators going for your livestock, maybe even to kill them. Use them to defend yourself against bears, where they are a threat. To make them legal for the sakes of defending yourself against other people who have legal access to firearms basically unrestricted is one of the stupidest, most self-harming acts that humanity has managed to perpetuate for this incredible myth of 'being able to bear arms against the government'. As if the people could form a militia that could take on the american army any time after, say, the civil war.
Any arguments for the unrestricted right (or DUTY, wow) of the common man to own a firearm, let alone carry one out and about, are, in my opinion, mental gymnastics of the highest order, and no abuse of statistics and logic by tepe will convince me otherwise. Hence, not a debate, just me shouting past him and him shouting past me - a debate is when there is the remotest possibility of minds being changed.
It is shocking to see a city like Chicago with over 760 murders in a year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/us...ide/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazin...ets-of-chicago
Last edited by Top_gun; 19-06-2017 at 11:00 PM.
You do NOT want me playing football... bad enough when they made me play rugby!!
Their lives are not in danger in controlled environments, though. That's kinda the point... Unless you want to ban things like martial arts, too?
Been there, done that.
Been there, done that too.
Defense has NEVER been my assertion... I assume you've been reading the thread?
That's all good and well, but other countries manage it and achieve it far better than America, which is my point - We here and them over the pond there have both demonstrated that the people of our nations cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with firearms even under controlled conditions. Our cultural, social and personal attitudes are not conducive to bearing arms. Arming the Police will merely escalate that attitude and more criminals will not only arm their own selves but also more readily put those weapons to use.
Oh, so like the Presidential 'Debate' or the General Election 'Debate', then?
Good for you... I'm still enjoying the debate, though.
No gun=Drive a lorry into a crowd and kill 90 people with no one to stop you. That argument is done.
Arizona passed their constitutional carry law in 2010 which allows carry without a permit. Prior to 2010 a permit was required. Violent Crime in AZ is down since 2010.
I walk around unarmed every time I visit London, despite how much more dangerous it is.
In the US, where people are nothing if not irresponsible and stupid, there are something like 3800 accidental firearms deaths a year. There are ten times as many deaths from each of poisonings and falling over, which proves the first point. Ignoring that many of these are not entirely accidental 'while cleaning his gun...', it's still a surprisingly small number compared to the 30k+ traffic fatalities each year.
If the most dangerous thing I do every day is to drive a car, then it's not unreasonable to seek to mitigate that danger. I'm not afraid to drive, but I do wear a seatbelt. It's not fear, it's common sense. I carry a gun for the same reason.
Very. And yet they have some of the strictest gun laws in the US.
That's like saying they are the least corrupt part of mexico.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
You can dodge a truck. You cannot dodge a bullet.
Traffic restrictions (ie physical measures that prevent vehicles from entering areas) are far cheaper and far more effective at stopping traffic that armed police and civilians are at stopping bullets. Also traffic restrictions don't accidentally shoot their family members, or go postal on people.
2010, you say?
So they had permits before this?
How interesting..... because in 1996 and in every year since, Violent Crime, Murder, Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Burglary and Larceny-Theft all dropped, and by a notable amount.
Crime was already dropping just fine BEFORE they had this wonderful constitutional carry...
However, in 2015, when they have this special carry law that makes everything so right, Violent Crime actually increased by a fair few percent.
In 2015, Arizona was ranked the 15th most dangerous State in the US. In 2016 it was ranked the 10th.
If it was in any way as dangerous as the US, we'd have armed our Police already and we'd have military units out reinforcing them. About the most dangerous thing that can happen to you in London is that you get short-changed by the Saturday Boy in Starschmucks or Costa-lottamoney...
And if it was in any way as dangerous as the US, if not "much more" as you claim, you'd be dead already. That amount of danger in this small a space? You'd be getting knifed every five minutes... more, if they hear an American accent, as they'll think you've got a gun!!
Accidental...!!!
Add to that 370-odd mass shootings, that's at least 1,480 intentional deaths. The 2015 total was over 13,000 people intentionally shot...
As there are in the UK and many other countries, many of which are from misuse of illegal drugs in the first place.
But you're right - More people die from driving cars, so let's give everyone a pocket-sized weapon of ranged death, complete with reloads, and let them kill even more, right? Because, you know, it's not THAT many more deaths, right?... the US only has one of the highest gun-death rates in the entire world. It's not THAT big a deal, right?
Which point, exactly?
Small number, you say?
9/11 was only a couple of thousand people, weren't it... not like that was in any way significant... very small number, compared to some other statistics.
Yeah, exactly.
If you want to prevent armed criminals and armed idiots from KSIing your people, join the Police.
If you want to prevent terrorists from blowing up your country, join the military.
However, if you want to 'protect the children' then yes, your right to do so with a gun trumps my fear of your gun... or so I'm reliably informed... by a woman whose 4-year-old subsequently shot her in the back with her own .45 1911.... !!
That's basically fearing somebody crashing head-on into you with their big, powerful V8 car, so you get a bigger even more powerful one... which is just going to get you both killed.
Bad choice of analogy, mate - If safety was actually your concern, you'd sell the gun and buy body armour. THAT is more like a seat belt.
In addition, using a gun for defense requires that you identify the threat in time, draw first, shoot first, aim well enough, are actually in range, don't have the sun in your eyes, have a sufficiently powerful gun and enough reloads to kill however many threats there are, all while taking cover and avoiding getting shot, assuming many things including that your targets are too stupid to be wearing body armour themselves since everyone around them has a gun now... which are just a few among so many variables.
Using body armour for defense simply requires that you wear it.
And yet they still have guns... because they're going and getting them from the neighbouring states, where the gun laws are very lax!!!
"Chicago has strict gun laws, which is why many gun rights advocates point to it as evidence that tighter regulation doesn't equal less crime.
But Chicago's gun violence problem is more complicated. Sixty percent of the guns used in shootings were purchased out of state.
"We border Indiana and Wisconsin, which have really lax gun laws," Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said. "We know that people from Chicago go across the border, fill up gym bags with illegal weapons from gun shows and things of that nature and they come back here and sell them to the gangs".
Yay for lax gun laws!!
Kinda like how drugs are illegal to buy in-country, so you go get them from Mexico... or perhaps even buy 'em off the CIA, ya know. Help the secret war effort, and all that.
Sorry to take exception on this but I've seen you claim it on more than one occasion and i feel you're using that data in a highly misleading fashion, the drop in violent crime can't be attributed to the constitutional carry law, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.
And you do the same when you say this...Gaetz said, "In the states that allow open carry, violent crime was 23 percent lower."
This is a fact that experts say is largely meaningless and shouldn’t weigh into any serious policy discussion.
There may be less crime in those states, but there’s no way the single data point Gaetz gave can provide clues as to the effects of open carry laws.
Gaetz’s statement is a one-year snapshot that is misleading.
You're using a false equivalence, the definitions of crimes in each country are significantly different.
Last edited by Corky34; 21-06-2017 at 03:54 PM.
Should I pitch the same emotional argument, and demand that you tell the family members of the victims of the attack in Nice that their loved ones should just have dodged?You can dodge a truck. You cannot dodge a bullet.
Traffic restrictions (ie physical measures that prevent vehicles from entering areas) are far cheaper and far more effective at stopping traffic that armed police and civilians are at stopping bullets. Also traffic restrictions don't accidentally shoot their family members, or go postal on people.
2010, you say?
So they had permits before this?
How interesting..... because in 1996 and in every year since, Violent Crime, Murder, Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Burglary and Larceny-Theft all dropped, and by a notable amount.
Crime was already dropping just fine BEFORE they had this wonderful constitutional carry...
However, in 2015, when they have this special carry law that makes everything so right, Violent Crime actually increased by a fair few percent.
In 2015, Arizona was ranked the 15th most dangerous State in the US. In 2016 it was ranked the 10th.
If it was in any way as dangerous as the US, we'd have armed our Police already and we'd have military units out reinforcing them. About the most dangerous thing that can happen to you in London is that you get short-changed by the Saturday Boy in Starschmucks or Costa-lottamoney...
And if it was in any way as dangerous as the US, if not "much more" as you claim, you'd be dead already. That amount of danger in this small a space? You'd be getting knifed every five minutes... more, if they hear an American accent, as they'll think you've got a gun!!
Accidental...!!!
Add to that 370-odd mass shootings, that's at least 1,480 intentional deaths. The 2015 total was over 13,000 people intentionally shot...
As there are in the UK and many other countries, many of which are from misuse of illegal drugs in the first place.
But you're right - More people die from driving cars, so let's give everyone a pocket-sized weapon of ranged death, complete with reloads, and let them kill even more, right? Because, you know, it's not THAT many more deaths, right?... the US only has one of the highest gun-death rates in the entire world. It's not THAT big a deal, right?
Which point, exactly?
Small number, you say?
9/11 was only a couple of thousand people, weren't it... not like that was in any way significant... very small number, compared to some other statistics.
Yeah, exactly.
If you want to prevent armed criminals and armed idiots from KSIing your people, join the Police.
If you want to prevent terrorists from blowing up your country, join the military.
However, if you want to 'protect the children' then yes, your right to do so with a gun trumps my fear of your gun... or so I'm reliably informed... by a woman whose 4-year-old subsequently shot her in the back with her own .45 1911.... !!
That's basically fearing somebody crashing head-on into you with their big, powerful V8 car, so you get a bigger even more powerful one... which is just going to get you both killed.
Bad choice of analogy, mate - If safety was actually your concern, you'd sell the gun and buy body armour. THAT is more like a seat belt.
In addition, using a gun for defense requires that you identify the threat in time, draw first, shoot first, aim well enough, are actually in range, don't have the sun in your eyes, have a sufficiently powerful gun and enough reloads to kill however many threats there are, all while taking cover and avoiding getting shot, assuming many things including that your targets are too stupid to be wearing body armour themselves since everyone around them has a gun now... which are just a few among so many variables.
Using body armour for defense simply requires that you wear it.
And yet they still have guns... because they're going and getting them from the neighbouring states, where the gun laws are very lax!!!
"Chicago has strict gun laws, which is why many gun rights advocates point to it as evidence that tighter regulation doesn't equal less crime.
But Chicago's gun violence problem is more complicated. Sixty percent of the guns used in shootings were purchased out of state.
"We border Indiana and Wisconsin, which have really lax gun laws," Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said. "We know that people from Chicago go across the border, fill up gym bags with illegal weapons from gun shows and things of that nature and they come back here and sell them to the gangs".
Yay for lax gun laws!!
Kinda like how drugs are illegal to buy in-country, so you go get them from Mexico... or perhaps even buy 'em off the CIA, ya know. Help the secret war effort, and all that.
You brought up accidents, not me. Still far fewer than the number saved by defensive gun use.
The analogy is perfect, but it really addresses the stupidity of the 'You must be afraid' argument. It's not fear of driving that leads people to choose to wear a seat belt. Just simple common sense.
So you're saying people use illegally bought guns to commit crimes? And you think the solution is more laws? How does that make any sense to you?
We already covered different definitions of crime. Ttaskmaster found an anti-gun blogger who researched the differences and came up with his very best possible estimate based on the same definition. He got quite upset when his own estimate proved him wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
