Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago

01-09-2013 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
and regardless, the question is obviously more complex than that. more cars obviously result in more death. Nobody in their right mind would dispute that.
its not regardless, thats the whole point. what should be uncontroversial has become an intellectual waterloo for a bunch of guys who would flunk out of a community college statistics class all of a sudden becoming internet experts.

i agree its obviously more complex and just because more guns=more crime does not mean more regulation.

when you say no one in their right mind would dispute that more cars=more death in a thread where people still have not acknowledged that more guns=more murder i think thats pretty awesome.

the point is we put speed limits on the roads because the utility of everyone being allowed to drive whatever speed they want has been decided to not be worth the negative effects of such policy. we also believe that setting a speed limit at too low of a point will lower deaths but decrease the utility of using cars to an unacceptable amount.

thats all this argument should be- balancing the utility of gun ownership/usage against its negative effect (more people die), where someone sets that line is their preference (i can think the speed limit should be 75 you say 55 thats 2 people being rational and disagreeing). you can say you are comfortable where gun regulation is but by blocking sensible gun regulations you are comfortable with more people dying than if guns were restricted just as i am aware by setting the speed limit higher more people would die as a result- it doesnt make you or me evil necessarily but in this thread very few have gotten to this point of even acknowledging this.
01-09-2013 , 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anilyzer
btw, no one finds it controversial that automatic weapons are illegal, right?

Therefore, why should it be any kind of sticking point that some forms of assault weapons should be restricted? s/URL]
Because automatic means something while assault weapons means nothing
01-09-2013 , 10:14 PM
The guy on Piers now is just as dumb as Jones but less entertaining due to no shouting.

Trying to say there were 970 gun related murders in the UK in 2011. Lol ppl.
01-09-2013 , 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anilyzer
btw, no one finds it controversial that automatic weapons are illegal, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Because automatic means something while assault weapons means nothing
wat.

automatic weapons aren't illegal.

you have to pay an extra $200 fee to get them.
01-09-2013 , 10:53 PM
Seriously, if hosts like Piers Morgan really wanna sway public opinion on this issue then they should have raving idiots like Alex Jones on his show all the time. Even if the guy happens to say something reasonable or true you won't notice because all you think while watching him drench the host with spit is "keep this mother ****er and people like him away from firearms"
01-10-2013 , 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
I'm all for gun control, as long as I can tell you what you can only say. Nothing more nothing less. If you insist on saying what you want, well then I insist on have the right to bear arms.
Hey, guess what?

Spoiler:
The government makes saying some things criminal, or at least civilly liable in a court of law.


But also, let me know when I can go into a shopping mall with a megaphone and kill 12 people with my speech, and then have someone allegedly threaten to yell at me, causing me to go run off into a stairwell and yell at myself until I die.
01-10-2013 , 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
whickerda,

The American revolutionaries had backing from actual governments with real armories and stuff.
Isn't French aid one of the things lol texas has taken out of some textbooks?

whickerda, you may have missed it, but Alex Jones did not come off well and parroting that is not a good idea.
01-10-2013 , 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whickerda
I don't care if you show me 1000 solid scientific studies that show fewer guns = fewer deaths. That's irrelevant to me.

YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY GUNS!


This whole thread is LOL 'tard 'tastic. It's like one of those threads where people debate the free market. People who understand something that a six year old can understand, debate the 'tards.

You're never getting my guns IDIOTS! LOL!! Come and get them! imbed clip from 300.imbed
Bolded sounds about right. Iyo what would make this thread less LOL 'tard'tastic? And what exactly can a six year old understand that the 'tards don't?
01-10-2013 , 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Isn't French aid one of the things lol texas has taken out of some textbooks?

whickerda, you may have missed it, but Alex Jones did not come off well and parroting that is not a good idea.
Yikes. lol texas indeed.

The 13 colonies were not just a rag tag group of gun owners.
01-10-2013 , 01:15 AM
Interesting analysis Case Closed. Buddy came in saying that article was brilliant, seems less so. Too bad the Supreme Court has ruled, twice, that banning handguns would be unconstitutional. That is to say, too bad for those who want less people to be murdered in the long run.
01-10-2013 , 01:36 AM
One of the things that this thread always makes me think of is what America would be like with a gun ban in place. It seems that those advocating such a ban believe it would yield utopia. I wonder how long after a ban guns would remain in the US if a ban were passed.

Would our government try to disarm the general public? What weapons would those who wish to do harm turn to? Would a black market bring a flood of weapons in to the US illegally?

All the talk about a militia overthrowing the govt is absurd. I believe gun legislation must exist hand in hand with respect for the second amendment in order to pass. In the USA we don't revolt against the govt, we just vote out politicians.
01-10-2013 , 01:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilkain
One of the things that this thread always makes me think of is what America would be like with a gun ban in place. It seems that those advocating such a ban believe it would yield utopia. I wonder how long after a ban guns would remain in the US if a ban were passed.

Would our government try to disarm the general public? What weapons would those who wish to do harm turn to? Would a black market bring a flood of weapons in to the US illegally?

All the talk about a militia overthrowing the govt is absurd. I believe gun legislation must exist hand in hand with respect for the second amendment in order to pass. In the USA we don't revolt against the govt, we just vote out politicians.
when you say it seem that those advocating such a ban believe it would yield utopia, name one post in 7600 in this thread that has led you to this thought.
01-10-2013 , 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilkain
One of the things that this thread always makes me think of is what America would be like with a gun ban in place. It seems that those advocating such a ban believe it would yield utopia. I wonder how long after a ban guns would remain in the US if a ban were passed.

Would our government try to disarm the general public? What weapons would those who wish to do harm turn to? Would a black market bring a flood of weapons in to the US illegally?All the talk about a militia overthrowing the govt is absurd. I believe gun legislation must exist hand in hand with respect for the second amendment in order to pass. In the USA we don't revolt against the govt, we just vote out politicians.
There's already a flood of weapons in the US legally, hard to imagine a black market being any worse.
01-10-2013 , 03:11 AM
Come on Pilkain, the slippery slope "they gunna take all the guns" argument is so awful. We have more guns per capita in Canada then you do and tried a gun registry program that I believe is technically still in place. While it's been an awful waste of money and executed poorly, it shows that a government can at least attempt at some sort of responsible gun control without coming for all the guns. Just was bad that the liberal government that tried it was 100x more incompetent then whatever your opinion of the dems is.
01-10-2013 , 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
Ok, lesson 2 for persuading people via arguments: don't call people you disagree with names. It's hard to get someone you call names to take you seriously.
So the "intellectuals" get to call me redneck, Bubba, delusional, idiotic etc. and I have to be nice and respectful. OK, I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the lesson.
01-10-2013 , 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Hey, guess what?

Spoiler:
The government makes saying some things criminal, or at least civilly liable in a court of law.


But also, let me know when I can go into a shopping mall with a megaphone and kill 12 people with my speech, and then have someone allegedly threaten to yell at me, causing me to go run off into a stairwell and yell at myself until I die.
Clearly you've never played Skyrim
01-10-2013 , 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
Gun ownership has to do with your ability to defend yourself, not your right. You have a right to gun ownership based on the 2nd amendment. Taking away the 2nd amendment would not take away your right to defend yourself. It would change how you are able to defend yourself. But in that case just get a taser or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surftheiop
This is so key.

I'm not allowed to own an ICBM to protect myself from North Korea, but that doesn't mean my right to self defense has in anyway been suppressed.
OK ,so if I add "with a gun" to the "right to defend myself" line it would all be good? That was worthwhile.

To address these silly taser and ICBM arguments:

If your wife/mother/daughter/sister found herself alone in a dark parking lot being approached by 2 men carrying knives who look like the "you gonna get raped" guy what would you rather she had:

A. A Taser
B. A Glock with 17 rounds of 9mm

No BS answers like cell phone, the cops are minutes away and she has seconds. Pepper spray is just going to piss them off. Pick one.

Do you think the reason that ICBM's aren't privately owned is because it's illegal? If so, any money you spent on education should be returned immediately.

Last edited by Deal_me_In; 01-10-2013 at 04:11 AM.
01-10-2013 , 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed

I don't get why he's talking good/evil nonsense.
Well, at least you read it. I disagree with most of your critique of course, but that's to be expected. The good/evil stuff is out of character from him, but I give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he means people intent on committing crimes and is being lazy with his wording.
01-10-2013 , 04:25 AM
You ever been pepper sprayed?
01-10-2013 , 04:41 AM
In the U.S. handguns account for 34% of guns and 89% of gun murders.
01-10-2013 , 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlinker3
I read the entire thing, and was excited to learn. There is nothing interesting or new with anything he wrote.

1. He assumes things at the outset that are at the very least highly debatable (the only reliable way for one person to stop a man with a knife is to shoot him-when discussing school stabbings in china.)

OK, I give. What's a reliable way for one person to stop a man with a knife without shooting him?

2. You have said there is math and logic in this article, can you please point me to any of it? He makes arguments such as assault weapons bans wouldn't save many lives (which I agree with) as why he is against it and then says further restrictions are politically untenable at this point (which I agree with) but I dont know what that proves other than that we have society
that values guns over human lives.

I'm sorry you didn't get much out of it. As has been pointed out many times, we value swimming pools, automobiles, ladders, electricity, and many other things that kill people as well. Before you say it, I know some guns are designed to kill people omg!!. Doesn't matter dead is dead. Sam Harris, I, and 10's of millions of Americans value our right to own guns over human lives lost to the criminal behavior or irresponsible actions of others.

3. He never deals with the core argument that more guns=more crimes in even the slightest substantive way (hint- he can't because its literally not possible so far with any research put forward)

You read the part where he responds to his critics? He spends a lot of time on it, we'll just have to disagree on how substantive it is.

4. He says for the purpose of saving lives we should not focus on mass shootings (which I again in general agree with) but then talks about enlisting 100,000 armed guards introducing a gun into the school environment of 55 million young americans. (so even if these guards do positively stop school shootings, they could very easily be a net negative).

Do you think that would be more expensive than disarming america? As much as your side makes fun of the idea, some states have adopted teacher carry. My dad is a retired professional who substitute teaches to make a few extra bucks. He has a carry license and has applied to the teacher carry program. He will be required to take tactical training then will be certified to carry at school. I'm biased of course, but in my opinion, he is a highly competent person and the kids in the schools he is teaching at will be safer than those without a trained, armed individual on hand.

So he frames an argument that he is never going to lose because he makes the pretty uncontroversial conclusion that regulation that does not effectively control guns in america (assault weapons bans) will not lower the crime rate. well good i agree and so do most gun control advocates.

conservatives love to talk about how we should let states handle every problem from healthcare to education because it is this great experiment lab where we can figure out what is working, but will do every single thing they can to ignore any examples we can learn from other industrialized nation where they have managed to lower healthcare costs or limit gun violence, its such an obvious absurd viewpoint. im not even saying conservatism as a political philosophy does not have a lot of merits because i believe it does over a range of issues, but the way that every argument is made by conservative media to appeal to the base is so infuriatingly illogical.

Personnally, I would love to see the conservative base transition from social conservative values to libertarian values. I'm sure that won't make your side feel much better, but I do have my own issues with the conservative base so, I can relate in some ways.
edit

Last edited by Deal_me_In; 01-10-2013 at 05:23 AM. Reason: bold
01-10-2013 , 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
You ever been pepper sprayed?
Yes I have, You ever been raped?
01-10-2013 , 05:48 AM
in a manner of speaking
01-10-2013 , 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
in a manner of speaking
Pepper spray and firearms aren't in the same league. I'm not saying pepper spray is useless, but a it's not even close to being as effective as a firearm and training in a situation where your life might be at stake.
01-10-2013 , 06:03 AM
did being pepper sprayed piss you off, or did it somewhat incapacitate you in any fashion, like making breathing hard, or vision blurry, or whatever?

      
m