What's your opinion of gun control?

[Beliathon]

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

[1714601298]

1714601298

[1714601298]

1714601298

[1714601298]

1714601298

[TECSHARE]

”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

Actually, Franklin never said that.

It was first seen in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania in 1759; the book was written by one Richard Jackson, Ben Franklin was merely the publisher.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)

You have no rights. You have privileges.

Yes, he committed the horrible crime of paraphrasing. BTW way to read your own sources. There were multiple instances of this quote, the earliest of which were directly quoted by Franklin. Of course socialists love revisionism and would love to take from us the wisdom of our forefathers.

He actually said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)"

Of course a devout socialist such as yourself would argue that The Bill of Rights are not rights but privileges granted by the state. The exact opposite is true. The bill of rights is a list of rights the government is NOT allowed to infringe upon, not a list of rights granted by the state. Rights are granted by "God" under constitutional law, and are inalienable.

[TECSHARE]

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.

picture

All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Great argument! Because our government uses military equipment in violation of posse comitatus to execute men women and children, and guns can't take out tanks, we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone! In reality there were very brief instances where these people were actively shooting at officers.

If you studied the situation at all you would realize if they wanted to they could have initially killed a whole lot of police, but chose not to, and were primarily acting in self defense. BTW you know why the government decided to execute all of these men woman and children? Because of a supposed illegal firearm (that turned out later to be perfectly legal)! There is some gun control for you! After all though, the TV said they are "cultists", so it is ok that the government burned dozens of men women and children alive.

[the joint]

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?

[Beliathon]

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?

I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!

You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than for self-defense.



Unlike random brainwashed internet conservatards with their useless anecdotes, data does not lie.

[TECSHARE]

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?

I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!

You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.

When was the national guard ever attacking law abiding citizens? BTW, nice picture, unfortunately you posted it 3 or 4 times already. Too bad posting pictures isn't a substitute for critical thought. BTW its spelled homicide.

[the joint]

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?

I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!

You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.

As I stated in the other thread, I see where this is going.  You're a black-and-white thinker, and little more than a parrot of buzz-word rhetoric.  I don't have the time to educate you about how to stay within the context of an argument instead of changing it willy-nilly whenever you have an idea, nor do I have time to explain to you the difference between things like correlation and causation, the definition of "mediating variable," "false dichotomy," or otherwise.  I'll retain my freedom to both carry a gun and think for myself, thanks.

[jayce]

I'm curious is there any conspiracy behind the gun control in society between government and gun manufacturers. http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html

[bill gator]

Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.

It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.

[TECSHARE]

Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.

It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.

Also more violent crime in general.

[Beliathon]

Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.

It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.

Also more violent crime in general.

Not even close. First of all it's an apples to oranges comparison because England is tiny compared to the USA. You could take 2 or 3 of the most violent major us cities and have far more violence than all of the UK.



The data clearly shows that as gun ownership has been declining, violent crime and death has also declined.







That's England, roughly the size of one US state. 53 million people, the entire UK is 64 million people, the USA has ~320 million people.

Also, you should read this http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

[TECSHARE]

Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.

It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.

Also more violent crime in general.

Not even close. First of all it's an apples to oranges comparison because england is the size of New Jersey, but yeah you could take 2 or 3 major us cities and have far more violence than all of the UK.

chart

Usually, most intelligent people would conclude that the UK has a much lower population than the US, and thus cite statistics that are adjusted per capita, but you know better than that! Your cited chart is not adjusted for the population differences between the two nations. The US has about 5x as many people in it, OF COURSE the crime rate is going to be higher if not adjusted per capita. This is just another example of how you present misleading and disingenuous statistics to support your failing argument. I see why you stick to parroting other people and posting pictures, that way you don't have to defend your flawed beliefs when challenged.

P.S. try sourcing your data not just posting random unsourced charts. Also I like your after the fact editing.

[Beliathon]

Usually, most intelligent people would conclude that the UK has a much lower population than the US, and thus cite statistics that are adjusted per capita, but you know better than that! Your cited chart is not adjusted for the population differences between the two nations.

Read the left side of the chart. WARNING: At your IQ, you may need to tilt your head to the left so your brain can process the information properly.



source 1: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
source 2: OECD, http://kieranhealy.org

[TECSHARE]

Usually, most intelligent people would conclude that the UK has a much lower population than the US, and thus cite statistics that are adjusted per capita, but you know better than that! Your cited chart is not adjusted for the population differences between the two nations.

Read the left side of the chart. WARNING: At your IQ, you may need to tilt your head so your brain can process the information properly.

chart added after the fact

source: OECD, http://kieranhealy.org

Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied. Also, a URL on the chart is NOT a source. A link to the study it came from is a source.

[Beliathon]

Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied.

Okay that's a fair criticism. I apologize, my posts are very rarely complete when I first publish them, I often do 2-3 minutes of editing to get them just how I want, it's quasi-OCD.

Of course this changes nothing about the data (facts) of this debate.

[TECSHARE]

Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied.

Okay that's a fair criticism. I apologize, my posts are very rarely complete when I first publish them, I often do 2-3 minutes of editing to get them just how I want, it's quasi-OCD.

Thats why the preview button is there.

[Beliathon]

Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied.

Okay that's a fair criticism. I apologize, my posts are very rarely complete when I first publish them, I often do 2-3 minutes of editing to get them just how I want, it's quasi-OCD.

Thats why the preview button is there.

I know it, I don't use preview button on any forums I use, it drives people nuts but it's because previews very often don't display information the same as it will look when posted.

[the joint]

I think the issue of gun control is so often mischaracterized because the issue of government control casts a veil of ignorance over almost everyone's eyes.  The extent to which guns can be controlled is predominantly influenced by how much control can be exercised by government at the Federal and state levels.  The larger governments get, the more tightly regulation generally controls all other facets of life, including things such as commerce, education, criminal justice, mental and medical health treatment, and even social relationships.  

On one hand, progressively granting government more control propels the myth that people would somehow be unable to work together harmoniously without such structure.  On the other hand, granting such control would make catastrophe all but certain if it were suddenly removed (i.e. we've gotten ourselves in too deep to easily pull ourselves out).  The situation is far more complex than people make it out to be, and you'll never reach a viable solution to the gun issue by simply looking at gun statistics, or even by relating those statistics to other things over which the government has been granted authoritarian control.

[usairx]

we always have to consider the possibility that they're only after a stepping stone towards more restrictive legislation.

[roadbits]

gun control laws appear to have no effect on crime rates, particularly upon gun murder rates