Assault weapon bans

[mdude77]

You are delirious if you think that the most armed countries are the most peaceful - first example, the USA. It's the country in the world with more weapons (35% to 50% of all the privately owned guns in the world are in the US, while its population only amounts to aprox. 5% of the world population), while its one of the most violent countries in the world. So... the problem is you need more guns?? Really?

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen. Add to that Americans in particular don't seem to get proper training to use their firearms given how many accidents occur and it's pretty easy to see exactly why there are so many gun deaths in your country compared to the rest of the world.

Exactly how many accidents occur from guns?

More than car deaths?
More than medical deaths?
More than plane deaths?

Without looking, the last one might be possible, I doubt the first two.  In fact I'm pretty sure the #1 cause of accidental death in the US is the medical industry.  Yet I don't hear many people talking about that.

M

[mdude77]

I pretty much agree - guns are just inanimate objects (with only one purpose: to kill), and its just stupid to put the blame on inanimated objetcs - the blame is on individuals committing the crimes. The amount of privately owned guns in the US is a cause and reflection of its violent culture, dominated by fear and greed. Gun-lovers are not helping at all to change that culture, though.

That is untrue.  I own a gun.  Am I more likely to commit violence?  No.  Is violence more likely to be committed again me?  No. 

The solution is not to strip the innocent law abiding of their defense.  That's what gun "control" is all about.  As I stated earlier, most of the mentally depraved individuals in the world have ready access to guns.  Laws don't mean anything to them. 

M

[mdude77]

I explained myself badly (sorry for my poor english). What I meant is the opposite: I don't think the US is violent because there are many guns - I think there are many guns in the US because it is an extremely violent society, and that violence is rooted in its culture. The USA has always being an imperialist power, and IMO this distinct characteristic emanates from a large part of the population being obsessed with its "god-given right" to apply violence. Yes, its always about "self defense", but you know how relative things might be... Saddam was supposed to have deadly weapons of mass destruction, so slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians was self defense; George Zimmermann killed a 17 year old unarmed teen in self-defense, and this guy (video in the link) shooting a 13 years old kid would have probably been considered self-defense too if we didn't have a video.

Your point about culture is spot on.  However, your examples are mountains made of out molehills and completely out of context to support your argument.  

1 - Last I checked, "shoot first, ask questions later" will end you in jail.  Killing a ANYONE who breaks into your house without just cause is called murder.  Only if you have reasonable cause to fear for your life are you allowed to use deadly force.  Anything else and you will likely be convicted of manslaughter or murder.

2 - You are quoting the Zimmerman case as made out by the public relations hired by the "unarmed teen"'s parents to portray their son as an innocent bystander and spread like reality by the anti-gun media.  The truth appears to be quite the opposite, Zimmerman feared for his life and would have died if he did not defend himself.  You can choose to believe otherwise, but the "jury of peers" believed that to be the case.

3 - Saddam was a CIA pawn who lost his value, and was used an excuse to invade Iraq to benefit of the military industrial complex and the corporate interests behind it.

And I know what some of you will tell me - "stand your ground is perfectly fine, because how can someone know if an intruder is armed or unarmed? How do you know if he will try to kill you? If someone breaks into your property, you just shoot him..." Wow, nice society living in constant fear and violence, where random kids go to schools and slaughter their mates. And if not, they can always go to Iraq or whatever come next.

How do you know?  Very simply.  You aim your gun/shot gun at him and tell him stand down.  If he comes running at you, or appears to pull a weapon instead of standing down, it's very clear his intentions are malicious.  Your implied alternative is ludicrous.  What would you intend we do?  Ask them to please not hurt you?  Rob us blind, ignore my good looking wife and daughter, and leave us alone?  Seriously?

I think the problem is very, very deep. Everybody here is so convinced about them being "the good guys", but you seem to forget that 99% of the people (including the criminals) consider themselves "the good guys", the bad one is always the other guy. That's basic human psychology. I already made the example of the military, and how relative is who is "the bad" or "the good" guy in real life - it's not all about law abiding citizens and psychopathic serial killers, things are more complex and subtle. And there you have people arming themselves and thinking "hey, I have the balls and the means to protect my family", this mentality is deeply rooted, and at some point some idiot will be totally convinced he saw a "bad guy" who might be a threat, who could have the exact same mentality and could be armed too, so its better to shoot first just in case because hey, that's how life is.

That's sick. Human life is the most precious thing we have. I'd for one prefer to live and let live by breaking this pointless and horrendous loop.

The problem with your answer is there is a good chance the "invadee" will not live.  You assume that law abiding peaceful gun owners (the ones who are subject to so called "gun control" laws) will react with impunity and shoot for no reason whatsoever.  The media and gun control fanatics love spreading that lie.  The reality is quite the opposite, as I described above.  

The solution to the problem is not less guns.  The solution is restoring morality, which to my knowledge originates from God, either directly or indirectly.  It's like the meaningless sports events that the masses attend.  Once the masses wake up, they no longer go to the sports events, the sports teams dissolve.  Likewise, when a Godly culture is restored, guns won't be needed anymore.  I believe you have it backwards.

M

[Rassah]

You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider:

1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice.

2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher.

By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures.

Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere.

You are absolutely correct:  correlation does not equate to causation. I am simply showing that it is your arguments that are pointless. Correct, water dropping below 0 correlates with ice. Correct, Loch Ness monster sightings correlate to the heght of skirt hemlines. And correct, global temperatures correlate to drop in piracy. But that argument IS pointless. Just as increased crimes correlate to increased gun ownership is a pointless argument. If you want to make an actual valid argument, explain WHY water dropping below 0 causes ice, WHY height of skirt hemlines increase Loch Ness monster sightings, and WHY increase in guns causes more violence. You guys keep failing at that, relying on correlation arguments, and I'm just pointing out that such arguments are worthless.

[Rassah]

These examples sure are dumb, but you get the idea.

I think the "idea" is that you have to resort to dumb examples to defend your point  

- carrying a firearm in Switzerland is strictly prohibited, unless you a) are en route to practice with your unit or b) you work in security (meaning your are a policeman or similar). There's no way a regular citizen is allowed to carry a gun, there's no "special permit" or license possible. If authorities catch you carrying a pistol, you go straight to jail. Oh yes.

...

if you shot a thief armed with a knife that broke into your house and you kill him, you go to jail for life unless you have an excellent defense that can prove that the thief's intention was not just to steal from you, but to outright kill you...

That's actually the exact same way it is in Maryland (which is only slightly smaller than Switzerland). You are not allowed to carry a gun, except to the shooting range to practice, getting a "special permit" or license to carry a gun is impossible, being caught with  gun means you go straight to jail, and if you shoot and kill a thief who broke into your house, you go to jail for life. Pretty much exactly the same in every way. Except that Maryland government doesn't give out guns for free. People have to by them. And yet Baltimore has some of the highest homicide rates in the country. So... what's different if it's not the guns?


Oh, on a side note, Rampion, do you live in USA?

[FirstAscent]

You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider:

1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice.

2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher.

By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures.

Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere.

You are absolutely correct:  correlation does not equate to causation. I am simply showing that it is your arguments that are pointless. Correct, water dropping below 0 correlates with ice. Correct, Loch Ness monster sightings correlate to the heght of skirt hemlines. And correct, global temperatures correlate to drop in piracy. But that argument IS pointless. Just as increased crimes correlate to increased gun ownership is a pointless argument. If you want to make an actual valid argument, explain WHY water dropping below 0 causes ice, WHY height of skirt hemlines increase Loch Ness monster sightings, and WHY increase in guns causes more violence. You guys keep failing at that, relying on correlation arguments, and I'm just pointing out that such arguments are worthless.

Gun crimes increase with gun ownership. It's been stated. It doesn't need to be stated why, for it is obvious. Gun crimes depend on gun ownership. But feel free to start discussing pirates and climate change, if you wish to be completely irrelevant.

[Rassah]

Gun crimes increase with gun ownership. It's been stated. It doesn't need to be stated why, for it is obvious. Gun crimes depend on gun ownership.

Car thefts increase with ice cream sales. It has also been stated, and is actually a fact. I could also say that it's obvious. So, would you agree to me preventing you from being able to buy ice cream on this fact alone? I won't want my car stolen, so the obvious thing is to reduce ice cream sales.

[Rassah]

soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.

Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add.

So why don't you use your guns to stop those killings, committed by your neighbors? Because those "bad guys" are just destroying other people's families, and not your own? Or maybe just because you know you do not stand a chance against the Federal Government and the US army?

Yes, I am not suicidal. Also, I know that trying to shoot back at them is the worst of the possible options in stopping this from happening. There are much better options.

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

You might be an exception.

He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity.

I don't think the US is violent because there are many guns - I think there are many guns in the US because it is an extremely violent society, and that violence is rooted in its culture. George Zimmermann killed a 17 year old unarmed teen in self-defense, and this guy (video in the link) shooting a 13 years old kid would have probably been considered self-defense too if we didn't have a video.

Hey, can you remind me, which country was it where a pair of nutcases hacked up a soldier, in the middle of the city, during the day, as bystanders just stood and watched them do it, and then didn't even bother trying to run away? Or in which country did a nutcase with a machinegun go to an island that had a camp for kids, and proceeded to just shoot all the kids who couldn't get away because they were on an island? It wasn't US, was it?

[FirstAscent]

Gun crimes increase with gun ownership. It's been stated. It doesn't need to be stated why, for it is obvious. Gun crimes depend on gun ownership.

Car thefts increase with ice cream sales. It has also been stated, and is actually a fact. I could also say that it's obvious. So, would you agree to me preventing you from being able to buy ice cream on this fact alone? I won't want my car stolen, so the obvious thing is to reduce ice cream sales.

You're being ridiculous. Go eat a McDonald's cheeseburger, since you think they're to die for.

[FirstAscent]

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

You might be an exception.

He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity.

Curiosity killed the cat, Rassah.

[Rassah]

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

You might be an exception.

He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity.

Curiosity killed the cat, Rassah.

Dafuck?! This is the credo I live by: http://areidcuriosity.blogspot.com/

[FirstAscent]

The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.

That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns.

And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist.  Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold.

You might be an exception.

He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity.

Curiosity killed the cat, Rassah.

Dafuq... This is the credo I live by!

http://areidcuriosity.blogspot.com/

I mean it sincerely.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.Uh_0TbyDuvE

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe: http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle Association says: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

The health risk of having a gun in the home: http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit: http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-home-greater-health-benefit.html

Statistics, Guns, and Wishful Thinking: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking#

Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?: http://www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html

Association between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

[NewLiberty]

If scientists did a study and wrote it down for their peers to review that said you should stop using cryptography, including bitcoin, because criminals and terrorists that use cryptography often use Bitcoin, would you try to pass a law forcing yourself and your compatriots to do that?
Would you advocate to those of whom you have a low opinion, that they should not be allowed to use it, and that they should ask their governments to stop them?

[Rassah]

I mean it sincerely.

[TONS OF LINKS]

Sorry, but in case you haven't understood this after so much time arguing with me, arguments from authority don't impress me, and, most importantly, I am a very logical person, so arguments involving feelings sound like self-serving bullshit to me. If you want to convince me, you'll have to rely on actually, you know, explaining HOW guns increase violence.

Links about how scary guns are, about how gun ownership is correlated to gun crime, or about how guns are dangerous and could lead to accidents (no shit, they're designed to kill) isn't going to get anywhere. Then again, if you are a very touchy-feely type person, then you may not understand how to debate or convince me, either. So, basically:

Your intent is to force people to have fewer guns.
Your purpose is to reduce the amount of guns in private hands.
Your premise is that an increase in guns is directly responsible and/or is the cause of increase of violence.

Our argument is that your premise is wrong, and thus your purpose and intent are misguided. You can demonstrate why it is not wrong by giving a direct, explicit, and precise causal link that leads from gun to violence. Correlation statistics are not a link, they are nothing more than circumstantial evidence. You need o start with "Guns cause violence, because..." and not continue with "guns cause violence." If you can not do that, then you can not convince us.

[TheButterZone]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

[FirstAscent]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

[Rassah]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

[TheButterZone]

In a peacetime society, guns cause violence to stop, because criminals don't like to be shot.

Criminals who want guns depend on and need you to champion gun ownership.

Unless you are in Maryland. Then they prefer the status quo, which is that guns are banned, and they know that everyone but them is disarmed.

Nobody ever said a non unified approach is worth shit.

How much more unified can you get than "Carrying a gun? Go to jail."  Or are we back to the "gun control only works if every country in the world implements it, except it woks in Japan despite no unification?"

Doesn't work in Japan, crime's still perpetrated... there with guns. Point me to a place where "gun control" has ever worked 100% and I'll need a GPR to find anyone there, because IT'S A FUCKING MASS GRAVE.