Morals Thread

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Any amount of guns we remove from private ownership will naturally lead to a correlated decrease in number of gun deaths.

Except that said Lanny foolishly forgets that those with arms, told to no longer have arms, will be up in arms, proclaims Rolf.

Originally Posted by Psych

You use the classic weasel terminology alot. "A good number," "probably," got any statistics to back that talk up?

Seemingly not, notes Rolf. Society contributes more directly to murder/violence/crime rate than does the availability of firearms, as Rolf has previously stated and proven with statistical comparisons between two Western European nations, states Rolf. At least those in a rotten society have the ability to defend themselves when firearms are available, adds Rolf.

[Mr.Happy]

Let's see what the talented researchers at Harvard University have to say about factors associated with gun ownership.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

"Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. "

"States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."

"States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment. There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide."

"Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide."

"For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

"Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide. The state rates of non-firearm suicide and non-firearm homicide among children are not related to firearm availability."

"But gee shucks, guns ain't bad. I love goin' down to the range with my buddies and shootin' off some rounds. Makes me feel like a real man. And havin' a gun in the home keeps me and my family safe, dammit!"

Let's see if Oxford University researchers agree.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

[mizled]

Unilateral disarmament of the U.S. civilian population would be somewhat problematic, especially in non-urban settings.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by mizled

Unilateral disarmament of the U.S. civilian population would be somewhat problematic, especially in non-urban settings.

That's pretty much irrelevant. Any amount of guns that we take out of private ownership will work towards a safer society, even if we don't totally disarm the population in a single generation. Guns don't last forever. If we take away guns as they appear, and ban importation, eventually we'll be a near-gunless society.

[Midwest]

Originally Posted by Lanny

The idea would be to remove guns from civilian circulation entirely, such that neither criminals nor law abiding citizens would have guns. But hell, even if we didn't, we'd still reduce killings. "Respectable" gun owners murder people too, it's not just career criminals.

Tryin to get all guns of the street is like trying to cure a suboxone habbit with heroin.
Its not gonna ever happen

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Midwest

Tryin to get all guns of the street is like trying to cure a suboxone habbit with heroin.
Its not gonna ever happen

Did you even read my post?

[Midwest]

No just the reply...gimme a min

Its just the idea part I was talking about. Not your post directly. If that makes any sence

[benny vader]

Originally Posted by Lanny

That's pretty much irrelevant. Any amount of guns that we take out of private ownership will work towards a safer society, even if we don't totally disarm the population in a single generation. Guns don't last forever. If we take away guns as they appear, and ban importation, eventually we'll be a near-gunless society.

People kill people with guns, guns kill people with ammos, therefore the root-means to kill people is

AMMOS.

As the great Hitler [pbuh] once said, to cure syphilis we must eliminate the source, not the merely symptom.

Badd peoples are symptoms, guns are symptoms, bad people with guns are too .... symptoms.

Get rid of the ammo their loaded with and people will cease getting shot at.

BAN AMMOS.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

Let's see what the talented researchers at Harvard University have to say about factors associated with gun ownership.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

"Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. "

"States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."

"States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment. There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide."

"Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide."

"For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

"Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide. The state rates of non-firearm suicide and non-firearm homicide among children are not related to firearm availability."

"But gee shucks, guns ain't bad. I love goin' down to the range with my buddies and shootin' off some rounds. Makes me feel like a real man. And havin' a gun in the home keeps me and my family safe, dammit!"

Let's see if Oxford University researchers agree.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

Now lets see what Harvard had to say about the relation between gun ownership and actual homicide rates.

Though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.

It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

Less guns =/= safer society. Less guns = less guns. That's it.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by Lanny

That's pretty much irrelevant. Any amount of guns that we take out of private ownership will work towards a safer society, even if we don't totally disarm the population in a single generation. Guns don't last forever. If we take away guns as they appear, and ban importation, eventually we'll be a near-gunless society.

Right.
I'm not knocking your personal utopia, I just don't live there.
Bless your heart though; and:
Let's get the guns out of the hands of criminals first. Seriously.

The police really aren't here to prevent crime, they're here to catch criminals.
No one ever gets a ticket just because their car can go faster than the posted speed limit and be operated while intoxicated. They're ticketed after having done one of those things.
Same goes for crimes of violence.

By necessity the police wait until someone is assaulted, raped, murdered or robbed before they prosecute the perpetrators. If they didn't, it'd be a Tom Cruise movie or something. Thus, the police cannot do a single thing to make the average citizen safer. I've been knifed on two different occasions, there weren't any cops around either time.
I'm assuming that the police are the ones that will have to disarm the public (200 million guns in America), so they'll probably have to clamp down on all sorts of other civil liberties in the process. That's okay though, it's all in the public interest.
Where to start?? Hmm.
Strip the ghetto's of guns - and good luck on that.

Until you get firearms and other weapons from out of the hands of criminals, I'll hang on to mine - just to be safe.
And I will be expecting reimbursement - some of these fuckers are pretty expensive.

[water bottle]

Well, my basic opinion is that guns are terrible things that have no place in modern society, and certainly not in urbanized states like the US. But I have to admit that I'm simply out of my territory on the issue of guns in America. That amazingly strong attachment Americans have to guns is just completely beyond my comprehension. For me, they're a metaphor for violence; for many Americans, they're a metaphor for freedom - a sort of derivative of the Old West spirit. America is fiercely individualistic. This has proven to be a positive and negative trait. On the gun issue, I feel it's a negative. In Canada the situation is thankfully quite different - one of the few differences between our countries, and a good one in my opinion. For these reasons I just feel this is a question America has to deal with by itself.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Psych

Now lets see what Harvard had to say about the relation between gun ownership and actual homicide rates.

Though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.

It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

Less guns =/= safer society. Less guns = less guns. That's it.

The only problem is those things you just quoted are not published by Harvard researchers, which it looks like you're claiming. I found a copy of the article you're quoting from on a website, gunowners.org, originally published in the "Daily Journal". The newspaper article you quoted from cited a single source. Mr. Happy's link covers 24 different peer-reviewed papers.

So what does Hardvard have to say about the relationship between homocide and gun ownership? This :

"A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

The source? A peer-reviewed meta-study. So in short, if you're going to argue from "the facts" you're going to need a better source.

[Psych]

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30 is not a good enough source for you?

Which of those facts that I bolded do you disagree with exactly?

And I'm not going to go into the fallacy that is "meta-studies." Sufficient to say that they are the most bias and disingenuous studies in existence. That's a distraction from what we are actually trying to argue here.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Psych

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30 is not a good enough source for you?

Which of those facts that I bolded do you disagree with exactly?

And I'm not going to go into the fallacy that is "meta-studies." Sufficient to say that they are the most bias and disingenuous studies in existence. That's a distraction from what we are actually trying to argue here.

You will go into the so called fallacy of meta studies or I'll consider you surrendering this argument. You don't get magically say you don't like a study and therefor you get to ignore it.

[Psych]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not going to argue the signifigance of study methodology. If you insist, you can read this to start; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Nevertheless, you are ignoring the gun ownership argument by arguing the source.

So I ask again; Which point that I bolded do you think is not true?

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Psych

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not going to argue the signifigance of study methodology. If you insist, you can read this to start; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Nevertheless, you are ignoring the gun ownership argument by arguing the source.

So I ask again; Which point that I bolded do you think is not true?

Alright, how does base rate fallacy apply to meta-studies?

Also, I don't actually disagree with any of the points you made, but you are taking three examples and making an unfounded extrapolation, while the Harvard study takes a much larger sample.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Lanny

I don't actually disagree with any of the points you made, but you are taking three examples and making an unfounded extrapolation,

How is it an unfounded extrapolation? There are places where there are more guns and yet less people get shot. There are places where there are very few guns and higher rates of homicide. That basically proves your premise blatantly false.

[sepht]

i dont attack until someone attacks me first

id rather talk my way out of a situation than let things get out of hand

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Psych

How is it an unfounded extrapolation? There are places where there are more guns and yet less people get shot. There are places where there are very few guns and higher rates of homicide. That basically proves your premise blatantly false.

It's an unfounded extrapolation because you're making a global assertion based on a sample of three. The Harvard study is making a global based on a much-closer-to-global sample.The conclusion founded on the more complete data set wins here.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Lanny

The conclusion founded on the more complete data set wins here.

This argument wins here:

Originally Posted by Psych

Less guns =/= safer society. Less guns = less guns. That's it.

It is known, states Rolf.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Rolf

This argument wins here:



It is known, states Rolf.

Ignoring this post because there is 0 content in it.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Ignoring this post because there is 0 content in it.

The argument is not less sound simply because it has been ignored by Lanny, for the same reason an argument is not less sound simply because it has sources said Lanny does not agree with, proclaims Rolf.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Lanny

The conclusion founded on the more complete data set wins here.

I really only need one example country to prove your premise false. Anything more is just overkill, but if you insist on being proven wrong over and over...

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=10881

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

Is that data complete enough for you? How many examples of your premise being false do you need? Face the facts, gun ownership does not equal more gun violence.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Psych

Is that data complete enough for you? How many examples of your premise being false do you need? Face the facts, gun ownership does not equal more gun violence.

By the blood at the murder site of Heimdall, /thread! proclaims Rolf.

[Mr.Happy]

Originally Posted by Psych

How is it an unfounded extrapolation? There are places where there are more guns and yet less people get shot. There are places where there are very few guns and higher rates of homicide. That basically proves your premise blatantly false.

There's plenty in the quotes from the meta-review I quoted from to support the assertion that less guns = less deaths. Did you miss this one?

"Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

And this one strikes me as relevant too:

"Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

This reminds me of why I stopped getting involved in internet debate. Everybody already has their preconceived notions and nobody will ever change their mind (yes, I'm including myself in this). There are sources on both sides of different arguments that people can quote back and forth all day, and they'll always find some reason to disregard those that they disagree with and hold those they agree with in the highest esteem.

Psych, I would be wary of trusting quotes claiming to come from a Harvard publication when the original source is a pro-gun website and the quotes cannot be found on any Harvard website (or anywhere else that isn't a forum, YouTube comments or pro-gun websites). The page I linked to is a summary of all Harvard's research on the relation between guns and death, and yet the study you quoted doesn't appear in any of the references there. In fact, if you actually find the original publication - which is difficult - you'll see that the quotes you posted do not appear in it. Most of the other research on gun control by Kates and Mauser is hosted on their own websites and doesn't appear in peer-reviewed journals - usually indicating that they failed the peer review process (although I'm sure the peer review process is just as flawed as the meta review process, right? )

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

But it doesn't matter. I'm not going around in circles any more.

[Psych]

So explain Norway to me then.

Oh and I posted a gigantic "meta-study" done by the pro-gun control National Academy of Science which could find no evidence of what you're suggesting to be true.

[Mr.Happy]

*sigh*

Like I discussed with Rolf, there are cultural factors too. Not every country with high rates of gun ownership will have a high rate of gun crime, and Scandinavia is the most socially progressive region on the planet. However, as above, more guns available tends to equate to more homicides in developed countries when you look at them all together (even excluding the USA, the country where this effect is by far the most pronounced; two thirds of all your homicides use guns, and your homicide rate is three times that of any comparably developed country).

Why did you post a meta-review if you believe the premise to be severely flawed?

Your meta-review also doesn't address the issue of levels of gun ownership, merely the effects of restrictive gun laws on a culture where gun ownership is firmly entrenched. I'll happily accept that changing gun laws in the USA has no demonstrable effect on violent crime - which is what your meta-review claims. Will you accept the findings posted above in my meta-review, which makes numerous claims that are independent of, and indeed unrelated to, anything shown by your meta-review? They're about two different things, you know, and you now seem to think that meta-reviews are valid so you have no reason to refute the findings in the Harvard link I posted.

[FANDANGO]

You're all missing the point here, who ever doesn't like guns is a blatant homosexual.

But seriously more guns equals more gun crime, no shit Sherlock. But guns are the great equaliser, I read in the paper the other day. Some crack head fresh outta jug broke into this old lady's house and beat her within an inch of her life, when her elderly neighbour tried to help her, he punched fuck outta her aswell. Police no where to be seen he could have killed both of them or worse. Thats what I don't understand about people who hate guns, you basically think people should be victims. I wouldn't think twice about stabbing a burglar/intruder and I live in the UK a facist state. (Which by law you're required to make him a cup of tea whilst he's pillaging your wife.) Otherwise I'd splatter his head across the room with a 12 gauge.

[p6867]

An armed society is a polite society. Where i grew up, if you went into a store and pulled out your gun first, you were the robber, if you pulled out your gun second, you were everyone the fuck else. Good luck first guy.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

Like I discussed with Rolf, there are cultural factors too. Not every country with high rates of gun ownership will have a high rate of gun crime, and Scandinavia is the most socially progressive region on the planet. However, as above, more guns available tends to equate to more homicides in developed countries when you look at them all together

I'm not American. I'm Canadian (another country with high rate of gun ownership and low rate of gun violence) and it sounds like you are agreeing that higher rate of gun ownership does not equal higher rate of gun violence. You say yourself that there are other factors at play. So I don't know what you're trying to argue.

Why did you post a meta-review if you believe the premise to be severely flawed?

Just because I have nothing better to do than to show that there are just as many studies (if not more) proving that high rate of gun ownership does not equal high rate of gun violence. I'm not saying that my studies are any more valid, just that it's stupid to say "I have a super study while your study is only a regular study durrr."

Your meta-review also doesn't address the issue of levels of gun ownership, merely the effects of restrictive gun laws on a culture where gun ownership is firmly entrenched. I'll happily accept that changing gun laws in the USA has no demonstrable effect on violent crime - which is what your meta-review claims. Will you accept the findings posted above in my meta-review, which makes numerous claims that are independent of, and indeed unrelated to, anything shown by your meta-review? They're about two different things, you know, and you now seem to think that meta-reviews are valid so you have no reason to refute the findings in the Harvard link I posted.

sigh sigh sigh.

Let's look at this in a scientific manner. Your hypothesis is that higher rates of gun ownership equates to higher rates of gun violence, no? Well that hypothesis is falsifiable. All I need is one example of a country where there is a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of gun violence to prove that hypothesis is wrong.

If what you were saying is true, then anywhere where there is more guns there would be more gun violence. And you've already agreed that there are places where it's not true. To ignore that and say that in most places what I say is true, is stupid.

What else is there left to say?

[Mr.Happy]

Originally Posted by Psych

sigh sigh sigh.

Let's look at this in a scientific manner. Your hypothesis is that higher rates of gun ownership equates to higher rates of gun violence, no? Well that hypothesis is falsifiable. All I need is one example of a country where there is a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of gun violence to prove that hypothesis is wrong.

If what you were saying is true, then anywhere where there is more guns there would be more gun violence. And you've already agreed that there are places where it's not true. To ignore that and say that in most places what I say is true, is stupid.

What else is there left to say?

No, that's not what I'm claiming.

Higher levels of gun ownership tend to equate to higher homicide rates. That holds true across all developed countries. There are nations where that's the exception, but the general trend is that more guns = higher homicide rates, particularly gun-related homicides.

If the whole world could be like Scandinavia, I'd have far less problem with relatively unrestricted firearm ownership. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that most nations have the required social framework required to have a high level of firearm ownership without a correspondingly higher rate of their use in violent crime, or the incidence of impulsive suicide (it's in the earlier link) or the incidence of accidental death.

All I'm really getting at is that guns cause problems and deaths, and that there's no comparable benefit to their ownership. Plenty of other studies show that they don't have any/have only minimal benefit in deterring crime or keeping you safe, or that owning a gun increases the chances of a gun-related accident regardless of storage methods or education (seems obvious; owning knives increases the risk of cutting yourself or others compared to not owning any knives, but knives have far more practical benefit).

I'm really out, this time. You're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change mine; nobody ever changes their preconceived notions through online debate. Frankly, either one of us could objectively be right; I think it's me, but you think it's you, and it's not like we'll be capable of disentangling that. It's like arguing evolution or religion or politics with someone who has a different stance to you.

EDIT: It wasn't me who said anything along the lines of "I have a super-study, you only have a single study, hurr."

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Mr.Happy

If the whole world could be like Scandinavia

Damn those Swiss bastards and their refusal to be called Scandinavian! proclaims Rolf.

[Fat Autistic]

We should return to fighting wars with swords and just pretend guns dont exsist for the rest of time

[water bottle]

Originally Posted by Rolf

Damn those Swiss bastards and their refusal to be called Scandinavian! proclaims Rolf.

Well, their glaciers are all going to melt, so perhaps someday they'll float up to their rightful place somewhere in the Baltic. They seriously have no business having Italy and France as neighbours. And to think how close Spain is.

[Ghost Buster]

For the record I refuse to argue with lanny because he/she is a retarded liberal who will ignore you when proven wrong. If you are proven wrong, you should have the balls to admit it. Lanny does not. Despite actually possessing testicles. Don't waste your time arguing with it. That being said...

Originally Posted by Shrike

I think gun owners are kind of inherently ridiculous and psychotic personalities. You only have to look at the Infrared thread where he's freaking the fuck out and threatening to shoot some dumb girl through his door because a gun went off and now he thinks the mob is coming to kill him or whatever. They all have that ridiculous mentality.

Yup. I find the general mentality of most gun owners to be totally retarded. I still own guns and advocate them. I find there are very few people like me, who seem to be in the more practical middle ground stance. Most people are either very anti gun or very pro gun. I'm neither. I try to look at things unbiasedly.

Originally Posted by Shrike

And they try and argue it away with things like saying motor vehicles can also be dangerous. Yeah, they can be, but their main function is driving people places. And plus, car makers are continuously making cars safer for passengers and pedestrians.
Junk food and cigarettes are also dangerous, but over a much much longer timeline. I think if a bullet took 50 years to kill someone it wouldn't be much use. They also taste good and don't do you that much harm if you use them in moderation.

Those are bad arguments, no question about it. I could argue gravity works because there is a giant magnet in the center of the earth. That would be a bad argument. It still doesn't disprove gravity.

Originally Posted by Shrike

Guns only function is to kill, however. You can't eat a gun, or use it to drive you somewhere, or slice some food with it. Now of course this claim also irritates the fuck out of gun people, since they claim all they use their gun for is target practice. Ok, sure. But target practice for what? You're practicing using your gun so that you get better at shooting your gun. What do you have a gun for if all you want to do is target practice? Get a fucking air rifle or something.

I have guns for hunting, recreation, and self defense. With comments like "you can't eat guns" its pretty clear you are totally ignorant to all of their uses. No, you can't eat guns, but they are certainly used to acquire food that would otherwise not be possible to acquire.

Originally Posted by Shrike

The other claim they make is that it's for "home defence" or "personal defence". Well honestly, a gun is not a very defensive weapon. It's only that if you're being all philosophical about it like "attack is the best form of defense". It's a bullshit semantic argument just like how the war budget is called the defense budget. "Oh are you against us defending our country?"

No.

Originally Posted by Shrike

"How can you be against me defending my home and family from intruders?" So first of all, you're probably not going to get robbed. Get a fucking burglar alarm or a safe and stop being so paranoid. Secondly, you probably aren't going to be prepared and ready to shoot some burglar breaking into your house. Even if you are, and you shoot and kill them, well isn't that great. You just ended someone's life for trying to steal a fucking stereo or whatever you have lying around. Do those two crimes equal each other?

You're an idiot. I will argue logically against any semi intelligent point you bring up. This isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Shrike

The other argument they make against gun control is that if you take away people's guns then only the criminals will have them. What is the alternative? A spiralling arms race where everyone has to have a gun to feel safe? Why do you want to live like that? I suppose it's only natural coming from the country that has to spend trillions of dollars a year on it's military and have enough nukes to put the entire planet into nuclear winter, but looking in from the outside it seems fucking ridiculous.

... So normal people shouldn't have guns? That's your conclusion? ...

Originally Posted by Shrike

Oh and the last argument i'm going to touch on is that of knives. They say that if you ban guns people just use knives. Ok, so yeah you can kill someone with a knife, that is a thing that can happen. But killing someone with a knife is a lot harder than with a gun, I mean that isn't even in question. It's a lot more physical, and the victim does have a chance to defend themselves. The only way to defend yourself from a guy with a gun realistically is with a gun of your own.

Excellent point. Criminals will always have guns. There goes your entire argument really. And FYI, if I was going to murder someone I wouldn't use any of my guns to do it. There are easier and more intelligent ways to kill someone if you want. Like poison. Trust me, if I knew where you lived, and wanted you dead, it wouldn't be hard to do. Guns are irrelevant. People have been murdering each since... forever. Guns are fairly new.

Originally Posted by Shrike

I mean look, I get it. Guns are cool, they're black and metal and sexy. They make for good action films and videogames. They make you feel powerful having a little thing in your hand that can kill someone just like *that*.
But this is real life, and it's not a fucking movie. Someone you kill is a real person with real family and friends, it's a real life you ended. And the more people toting guns around, the more people will die from them. That's just basic numbers.

This isn't an argument.

[Ghost Buster]

Originally Posted by Lanny

That's pretty much irrelevant. Any amount of guns that we take out of private ownership will work towards a safer society, even if we don't totally disarm the population in a single generation. Guns don't last forever. If we take away guns as they appear, and ban importation, eventually we'll be a near-gunless society.

I'll indulge this one point...

People like you started the war on drugs.

No. Very simply... No. That is not how reality will work.

Perhaps you haven't seen the gun section the silk road. Not to mention, it doesn't exactly take a genius to make their own weapons. Just someone with basic metal working skills.

[The Pat-Man]

They ain't no good for nothing else. And if you like to drink the whiskey, you might even shoot yourself.

A prominent 20th century poet wrote this beautiful prose.


So what's your excuse fer owning a handgun?

[Frankeh]

All guns are made for killing......

let's make a list of guns not made for killing.


1. nail gun

[Midnight Sun]

I won't beat around the bush: to kill the first nigger that looks at me sideways.

[The Pat-Man]

Originally Posted by Midnight Sun

I won't beat around the bush: to kill the first nigger that looks at me sideways.

i like an honest man.




A SIMPLE KIND OF MAN