Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.

---

I´m gonna quote my own post to make this as clear as possible

"So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun."

In my "hypothesis" all I did was describe 2 possible scenarios and ask which one you would rather be in..

this does not require statistics or any other kind of proof to support it....it only requires you to answer honestly.

so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.

---

That's not the point. Why don't we see daily massacres using the registered "destructive devices"? Because if you're going to waste some rival gang, it's far cheaper to get a pistol illegally and it doesn't put you in the headlights of a witchhunt (the "RPG killer" would last maybe a few days).

Quote:

---

True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.

---

It just doesn't make any sense. Criminals don't need high explosives (especially in light of how high-profile fun toys like RPGs would be). Additionally, full-auto Uzi's are already essentially illegal. Gangs still have access to them. Why would a new gun ban be any more effective?

Quote:

---

Opposite to my argument? That's funny. My stance is that even pistols shouldn't be available as they are in the USA, although I can understand the basic logic behind having a firearm. My argument in this thread is that there are more than enough types of firearms in the USA able of protecting yourself (Pistols included), so its hard to understand the violent opposition unless you use some kind of out of the blue argument (To other peoples) like (WE NEEDZ ASSAULT RIFLEZ TO KILLZ TEH TYRANTZ!), to which I find odd. Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.

---

Sorry, I got confused with another gun debate on another forum (:wall:). To address your argument:

Why do you need video games? Or leisure forums? You don't. However, assault rifles are already illegal (because assault rifles are full-auto military rifles), and semi-auto rifles are just not used in crime all that much. In my opinion, the (very) few deaths from semi-auto rifles are worth the freedom to have them - for any reason. Just like we accept the death of thousands in auto accidents every year. Because the freedom to have them - economical and otherwise - is worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

That's not the point. Why don't we see daily massacres using the registered "destructive devices"? Because if you're going to waste some rival gang, it's far cheaper to get a pistol illegally and it doesn't put you in the headlights of a witchhunt (the "RPG killer" would last maybe a few days).

---

True, but even so registered weapons are used often to kill. By users who shouldn't have them because the rules for firearms sales is too loose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

It just doesn't make any sense. Criminals don't need high explosives (especially in light of how high-profile fun toys like RPGs would be). Additionally, full-auto Uzi's are already essentially illegal. Gangs still have access to them. Why would a new gun ban be any more effective?

---

Uzi's are illegal? That's news for me. It was surprising to see how easily those guys in the Columbine massacre bought them in the shop just across the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Sorry, I got confused with another gun debate on another forum (:wall:). To address your argument:

Why do you need video games? Or leisure forums? You don't. However, assault rifles are already illegal (because assault rifles are full-auto military rifles), and semi-auto rifles are just not used in crime all that much. In my opinion, the (very) few deaths from semi-auto rifles are worth the freedom to have them - for any reason. Just like we accept the death of thousands in auto accidents every year. Because the freedom to have them - economical and otherwise - is worth it.

---

I can't believe you just compared a leisure forum, to a firearm. That was awesome. Leisure forums can't be used to kill innocent lives (I think). I could live without leisure forums. I can also live without firearms. Even semi-automatic rifles isn't needed to protect oneself. There is no other purpose in a semi-auto rifle then there is in a pistol. It serves to kill and to protect oneself. You can kill much more with a rifle and you won't protect yourself much better with a pistol. Cars have other purposes besides killing. Though your arguments are the soundest I've seen in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

True, but even so registered weapons are used often to kill. By users who shouldn't have them because the rules for firearms sales is too loose.

---

No way mang. Show me some numbers.

Quote:

---

Uzi's are illegal? That's news for me. It was surprising to see how easily those guys in the Columbine massacre bought them in the shop just across the street.

---

Full-auto would be illegal. I don't really know enough about Uzi's specifically to say.

Most firearms are not used for killing. Are they being misued?

Cars kill more people than guns. We simply can't get rid of either in the US, and another AWB won't change anything.

You say that the value of cars (the other purposes) outweigh the cost in human life they cause. Who are you to say that?

/sorry for the stream of arguments, there's just so many things I want to convey before going to dinner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I can't believe you just compared a leisure forum, to a firearm. That was awesome. Leisure forums can't be used to kill innocent lives (I think). I could live without leisure forums.

---

See, this is why the argument is going in circles.

You said that the firearms should be banned because they weren't needed.

Atpg pointed out that you can't ban things because they aren't needed. That isn't some dumb argument, it's putting you back at square one. Your reply is that it's ok to ban things that aren't needed if they can kill you. Fine, now atpg can point out the zillions of other objects that can kill people effectively and aren't needed and you'll come up with some new reasoning. It isn't a ridiculous comparison on his part it's a poorly thought out or expressed argument on yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

so?

---

But it is irrelevant, and not a realistic or logical argument against firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I´m gonna quote my own post to make this as clear as possible

"So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun."

In my "hypothesis" all I did was describe 2 possible scenarios and ask which one you would rather be in..

this does not require statistics or any other kind of proof to support it....it only requires you to answer honestly.

so?

---

Answer this one honestly: Your sister's ex-boyfriend has threatened to kill her and you know for a fact that he is headed to her house. Would you rather she had a gun or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

No way mang. Show me some numbers.

---

What, you actually think most kills are from people who go off specifically to the black market to buy a gun to kill someone? Look at the Columbine Massacre, those guys bought their guns legally. I tried to look for numbers, but I have no clue where such American statistics lie. You can kill with a registered gun and not be found out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Full-auto would be illegal. I don't really know enough about Uzi's specifically to say.

---

T'was a Tech 9 or whatever the name is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Most firearms are not used for killing. Are they being misued?

---

What are they used for? Why do the USA have the highest death percentage by firearms if most firearms aren't used for that specific purpose they are built for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Cars kill more people than guns. We simply can't get rid of either in the US, and another AWB won't change anything.

You say that the value of cars (the other purposes) outweigh the cost in human life they cause. Who are you to say that?

---

Not again... Ending this car comparison stuff, I'd guarantee you 90% of the deaths caused by a car are by accident. What about 90% of the deaths caused by firearms? Why the comparison? The government needs to do something about intentional kills. Heck, even the cars are modified so they are not as lethal as they are.
And I didn't say they outweigh anything. Dunno where that came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Answer this one honestly: Your sister's ex-boyfriend has threatened to kill her and you know for a fact that he is headed to her house. Would you rather she had a gun or not?

---

I would not want her to have a gun....having a gun involved in the situation would just elevate the chance of someone getting shot...now wouldn´t it?

as for the hypotethical situation you just described....if I have prior knowledge of where this ex-boyfriend is headed couldn´t this situation just as easily be resolved by calling my hypothetical sister and telling her to leave her house and go to a safe place? and then calling the police and alerting them of the situation?

Cell phones are readily available over here, have great coverage, and most importantly, can´t be used to kill someone.

also...if I can borrow from my previous example....I am not concerned by a drunk guy in a bar brandishing a cellphone at me....

sounds like a win win solution to me.


Edit: Better yet...let´s leave behind this silly sexist example of the "poor damsel in peril".....
I live in an appartment in a major metropolitan area, I am aware that there is a small statistic probability of a bunch of hooligans crashing my door in and trying to kill me...I live with that idea, and I sleep very well, just like I live with the statistic probability that I might get hit by a car tomorrow walking across the street.
I don´t want a gun, I don´t need a gun, and I don´t think a gun would contribute to my safety or those around me, quite the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

See, this is why the argument is going in circles.

You said that the firearms should be banned because they weren't needed.

Atpg pointed out that you can't ban things because they aren't needed. That isn't some dumb argument, it's putting you back at square one. Your reply is that it's ok to ban things that aren't needed if they can kill you. Fine, now atpg can point out the zillions of other objects that can kill people effectively and aren't needed and you'll come up with some new reasoning. It isn't a ridiculous comparison on his part it's a poorly thought out or expressed argument on yours.

---

Thing is, guns kill effectively and people use them to kill effectively (Since there is no other purpose for weapons). I'm not so sure about the other zillion objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

What, you actually think most kills are from people who go off specifically to the black market to buy a gun to kill someone? Look at the Columbine Massacre, those guys bought their guns legally. I tried to look for numbers, but I have no clue where such American statistics lie. You can kill with a registered gun and not be found out.

---

I absolutely think that most kills are with unregistered firearms. Criminals do the majority of killing with firearms. Why would a criminal register himself with the police? And sure, you can kill with a registered gun and not be found out, but it really hurts your chances.

Quote:

---

What are they used for?

---

Hunting, sport shooting, home defense, collecting, owning them because you think they're cool.

Quote:

---

Why do the USA have the highest death percentage by firearms if most firearms aren't used for that specific purpose they are built for?

---

Do you know how many guns we have? You refuse to find statistics but you claim we have this or that death rate. That said, the far majority of firearms in the US are not used for murder.

Quote:

---

Not again... Ending this car comparison stuff, I'd guarantee you 90% of the deaths caused by a car are by accident. What about 90% of the deaths caused by firearms? Why the comparison? The government needs to do something about intentional kills. Heck, even the cars are modified so they are not as lethal as they are.
And I didn't say they outweigh anything. Dunno where that came from.

Thing is, guns kill effectively and people use them to kill effectively (Since there is no other purpose for weapons). I'm not so sure about the other zillion objects.

---

Cars kill quite effectively, as the numbers show. More effectively than firearms, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I don´t want a gun, I don´t need a gun, and I don´t think a gun would contribute to my safety or those around me, quite the contrary.

---

No proponent of firearm ownership believes you should be forced to own one, to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I absolutely think that most kills are with unregistered firearms. Criminals do the majority of killing with firearms. Why would a criminal register himself with the police? And sure, you can kill with a registered gun and not be found out, but it really hurts your chances.

---

I don't. If you can find the numbers I didn't manage to find, I'd give you reason. You aren't a criminal until you commit a crime. It wouldn't be hard to imagine myself in a situation where I legally buy a normal registered gun, and in some uncontrolable rage situation (Say some whacko murdered my entire familly to steal a car and I just so happen to know where he was taking the car to) and I grab my gun and go after him to kill him. In the beginning I didn't buy the gun with that specific motive. Thus how "criminals" use registered guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Hunting, sport shooting, home defense, collecting, owning them because you think they're cool.

---

Since I don't know personally how the gun culture is in the USA, I'll just have to presume you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Do you know how many guns we have? You refuse to find statistics but you claim we have this or that death rate. That said, the far majority of firearms in the US are not used for murder.

---

I didn't refuse. I tried but I just couldn't get what I was looking for since I didn't know where to look. I wasn't gonna spend two hours looking for some numbers about a foreign country's registrated weapons percentage in all homicides, especially when most graphics talk about the total of murders or give or divisions when characterizing the total murder rate, to prove I'm right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Cars kill quite effectively, as the numbers show. More effectively than firearms, in fact.

---

...*facepalm* I'm not sure if you understood my point, but I won't even try this time.

Anyways, already made my opinion crystal clear. I find useless the legalization of assault rifles as they bring no security for possible more insecurity, when compared to ordinary pistols and firearms.

From the FBI, homicides in the US in '05 was ~14k, 10k involving firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offens...rtable_08.html

According to a survey in '04, there are 93 firearms per 100 Americans. (Obviously that doesn't mean that 93/100 Americans own firearms).

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...t/full/13/1/15

Lets say both figures are right, and have held basically stable until today. There are ~305M Americans.

So let's say there are .93 * 305M = 283,000,000 firearms in the US (rounding down a bit).

Let's also say that every firearm-related murder was done with a separate firearm.

10,000 firearm homicides / 283,000,000 firearms = .000035 = .0035 % of firearms were used for homicide.

Are 99.0065% of firearms being used incorrectly?

Jesus, 10000 dead in a single year? That's huge. Of course most weaponry aren't being used to kill, but they are used to kill. Noone expected anything near 1% of USA population killed by firearms and 10000 is a gargantuan number nonetheless. Yet don't forget it isn't just about murder, it is about wounds and violent crime. As far as only murder numbers go, 10000 kills in 365 days is brutal. That's 27 people per day, rounded down.

Yeah but most of those are in Baltimore, St Louis and Lawton, Oklahoma, so it's okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Jesus, 10000 dead in a single year? That's huge. Of course most weaponry aren't being used to kill, but they are used to kill. Noone expected anything near 1% of USA population killed by firearms and 10000 is a gargantuan number nonetheless. Yet don't forget it isn't just about murder, it is about wounds and violent crime. As far as only murder numbers go, 10000 kills in 365 days is brutal. That's 27 people per day, rounded down.

---

It depends how you look at the number. How many die in, say...car accidents (~;)) every year?

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

US fatalities from auto accidents in '07 was ~41k.

10k isn't all that much when you have 305,000,000 people Jolt. Tragic, sure, but the price we pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

US fatalities from auto accidents in '07 was ~41k.

10k isn't all that much when you have 305,000,000 people Jolt. Tragic, sure, but the price we pay.

---

It is when you compare it to death per population. In the USA, 10000 deaths in a population of 305.000.000 gives you 1 death per 30500 people, while in Canada, using their death by firearms of 2005, which was 816 (Rounded it to 800), in a population of 33.000.000 gives you 1 death per 41250 people. I'm pretty sure USA's higher than most developed countries. That is why it is a garguantuan value. You have a higher chance of getting killed in the USA by firearms than elsewhere. And its a price you're apparently willing to pay.

EDIT: In the accidents in the USA, there is one death per 7439 people. In Canada, there is one death per 11785 people. As you can see, the difference between USA and Canada accident deaths is of 4000. In firearms murder, it is 10000. More than double.

It is not because cars kill more. They kill relatively the same in most countries. Its because firearms kills many more in the USA.

Quote:

---

From the FBI, homicides in the US in '05 was ~14k, 10k involving firearms.

---

That still doesn't take into account the statistic of how many firearms are used in self-defense, in a year that result in fatalities. Those that are not part of those numbers, as that is a murder statistic, not the justifiable shootings that occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.

---

Hell yes. Registration does nothing to lower crime and only gives the government information that it can, and has, both outside and inside the US, used to confiscate weapons.

Quote:

---

True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket.

---

What tells you this? The same voices that tell you about those hypothetical scenarios gun-grabbers always seem to be coming up with but never have any factual evidence of?

Quote:

---

I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.

---

Then you don't really know much about either.

Quote:

---

Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.

---

Hell yes. I hate nazis, but I hate even more the idea of a litmus test for rights.

You know, maybe some of the people here could come up with something other than fabricated hypothetical scenarios. They prove nothing.

Quote:

---

I would not want her to have a gun....having a gun involved in the situation would just elevate the chance of someone getting shot...now wouldn´t it?

---

:jawdrop: :wall:

So the chance of the attempted killer getting shot is worse than anything else? The possibility of someone being shot - even if it is the criminal attacker - is so bad that the girl should remain defenseless?

Yes, her having a gun would elevate the chance of the attacker getting shot. That's good, because the other possibility is her getting killed. Now, it seems that you see using a gun - even in defense of an innocent person - as a moral evil, worse than injuring someone in the same way without a gun.

Now, is that correct? Why is that?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YT...eature=related

---

That's because John Stossel is awesome.

CR

I read he caught a lot of flack from some of his colleagues for that story. Typical knee-jerkers.