Guns

[vampire]

Let's see if you'll evade it an 8th time:

Time it takes for a cop to get there: 6 minutes
Time it takes an armed civilian already on the scene to draw his weapon: 5 seconds.

Events stopped by civilians are shorter, by practically a order of magnitude, than those which require police intervention. Now, which would you prefer: A gun battle that lasts 10-15 seconds, or an armed belligerent set loose for 6 minutes?

I didn;t evade, I answered you many times. Whatever crimes CCW carriers prevent, they also cause it. CCW carriers were also mass shooters.

You found 2. Good for you. You've proven that some psychopaths can lie on tests. Now answer the damn question:

Events stopped by civilians are shorter, by practically a order of magnitude, than those which require police intervention. Now, which would you prefer: A gun battle that lasts 10-15 seconds, or an armed belligerent set loose for 6 minutes?

Tell me why are you arguing me? You know my stance on guns, what you dont like about it?

Honestly, I don't care about your stance, I want you to answer my question.

2 or 6, may be 8 or 10? LOL fail as usually.


You never proved the point going from "draw" to "stopping" crime. My crime statistics says otherwise. Or are you implying a perfect world? In a perfect world there would be no crime.

An armed civilian may draw a gun in 5 seconds, but stopping crime - um um wait do you remember my chart again?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1048551#msg1048551

Let's see if you'll evade it an 8th time:

Time it takes for a cop to get there: 6 minutes
Time it takes an armed civilian already on the scene to draw his weapon: 5 seconds.

Events stopped by civilians are shorter, by practically a order of magnitude, than those which require police intervention. Now, which would you prefer: A gun battle that lasts 10-15 seconds, or an armed belligerent set loose for 6 minutes?

[1714176244]

1714176244

[1714176244]

1714176244

[vampire]

Honestly, I don't care about your stance, I want you to answer my question.

Honestly, I don't care for yours too. Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall.

/end thread.

[neptop]

I think, mainly psychopaths (in varying degrees and I don't really exclude myself) want to have a weapon, but still think people should be able to get guns. Not just because of thinking everyone should have the right too, but also since mass murderers get them anyway/don't need them.

[myrkul]

Honestly, I don't care about your stance, I want you to answer my question.

Honestly, I don't care for yours too. Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall.

Cops showing up doesn't end the situation every time, either. About 50% of rampage shootings end in suicides. Not "suicide by cop", straight up "Fuck you, I'm out." suicides. A good chunk of those happen before the cops get there. An overlapping chunk happened as soon as the assailant met resistance. Armed civilians means that resistance happens much, much sooner.

In that video, Grandpa may or may not have even hit with a single shot (the video isn't very clear). But he sure as hell ended the situation, now didn't he?

I guess we'll never know if you would prefer to be witness to a 15 second gun battle, or huddled under some scenery for 6 minutes while you wait for the cops to show up or the gunman to find you.

[RodeoX]

Do you think cops should have guns? Why, they are people also. Cops use their guns to murder people and kill themselves just like others. They are also not necessarily good with a gun. I come from a family of cops and I know way more about guns than most cops.

[FirstAscent]

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

[caveden]

Thought I should bring this here:

The End of Gun Control? (by an anti-gun in Forbes)

After what the article above describes becomes common, nobody will be able to keep using this lame and false excuse that "gun control can reduce the availability of guns to criminals". It will finally become pretty obvious that's not the case. Gun control, more than before, will only prevent honest people from having guns.

[Explodicle]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Keep going guys.

[vampire]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

Really?

Go ahead, make my day by trying to disapprove the chart. The data came directly from FBI:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1048551#msg1048551

Now you & co stop posting anecdotal evidence.

[Explodicle]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

Really?

Go ahead, make my day by trying to disapprove the chart. The data came directly from FBI:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1048551#msg1048551

Now you & co stop posting anecdotal evidence.

The chart looks like there's no correlation between permissive gun laws and violent crime. These statistics are only "useless" if your goal is to justify gun laws.

I agree to stop posting anecdotal evidence - please point it out if I do make such a mistake in a policy discussion. That goes for anyone who considers themselves my "company" too.

[FirstAscent]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.

[LuciusDeBeers]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.

Hunting.

[vampire]

The chart looks like there's no correlation between permissive gun laws and violent crime. These statistics are only "useless" if your goal is to justify gun laws.

I agree to stop posting anecdotal evidence - please point it out if I do make such a mistake in a policy discussion. That goes for anyone who considers themselves my "company" too.

Do you even know what I am saying? Since you don't read, I'll just quote relevant:

My stance on guns: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069177#msg1069177
Argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069260#msg1069260

myrkul argued and failed miserably: that guns reduce crime. Hell not. There is no correlation.

If you're with myrkul - put the real evidence out.

[Explodicle]

The chart looks like there's no correlation between permissive gun laws and violent crime. These statistics are only "useless" if your goal is to justify gun laws.

I agree to stop posting anecdotal evidence - please point it out if I do make such a mistake in a policy discussion. That goes for anyone who considers themselves my "company" too.

Do you even know what I am saying? Since you don't read, I'll just quote relevant:

My stance on guns: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069177#msg1069177
Argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069260#msg1069260

myrkul argued and failed miserably: that guns reduce crime. Hell not. There is no correlation.

If you're with myrkul - put the real evidence out.

I'm with YOU that there is no correlation. The part I object to is the use of anecdotal evidence to justify policy arguments.

Why mandatory certification? Are gun accidents special, or should we have mandatory certification for all dangerous tools?

[RodeoX]

Why should a gun be useful for me to own one? Jet-skies are useless, dangerous toys with no redeeming value. Should they be outlawed? Certainly alcohol, porn, crocks shoes, eye liner, tattoos, Internet forums, sitcoms, etc... must all be banned for their lack of usefulness. 
Of course those of you who are against guns tend to know the least about them. And I'm guessing that you have never seen real violence. If you had you might understand. If you lived in Syria you would beg and cry to be given a gun. But if you grew up in Belgium and never even touched a gun you get to decide what the rules should be? That does not make sense.

[Explodicle]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.

Ok, so now you've moved on to restricting guns because of BOTH the risk of accident AND their purpose.
The risk of accident argument opens up a slippery slope to restricting other things.
The object intent argument is irrelevant to accidents, and gun laws aren't preventing crime.

You're working backwards from a conclusion.

[vampire]

The chart looks like there's no correlation between permissive gun laws and violent crime. These statistics are only "useless" if your goal is to justify gun laws.

I agree to stop posting anecdotal evidence - please point it out if I do make such a mistake in a policy discussion. That goes for anyone who considers themselves my "company" too.

Do you even know what I am saying? Since you don't read, I'll just quote relevant:

My stance on guns: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069177#msg1069177
Argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069260#msg1069260

myrkul argued and failed miserably: that guns reduce crime. Hell not. There is no correlation.

If you're with myrkul - put the real evidence out.

I'm with YOU that there is no correlation. The part I object to is the use of anecdotal evidence to justify policy arguments.

Why mandatory certification? Are gun accidents special, or should we have mandatory certification for all dangerous tools?

So what are deadly tools that are abundant and don't require certification? Knives don't count, it's practically impossible accidentally to kill yourself with one. There are about 200 million guns in USA, we are talking about this abundant - within this order of magnitude.

From the other perspective the cars are tools and you need a license in all states.

Don't they have already classes about alcohol, drug abuse in schools?

Also learn to read... I didn't justify my stance with any evidence, myrkul didn't care to talk about it.

[Explodicle]

The chart looks like there's no correlation between permissive gun laws and violent crime. These statistics are only "useless" if your goal is to justify gun laws.

I agree to stop posting anecdotal evidence - please point it out if I do make such a mistake in a policy discussion. That goes for anyone who considers themselves my "company" too.

Do you even know what I am saying? Since you don't read, I'll just quote relevant:

My stance on guns: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069177#msg1069177
Argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069260#msg1069260

myrkul argued and failed miserably: that guns reduce crime. Hell not. There is no correlation.

If you're with myrkul - put the real evidence out.

I'm with YOU that there is no correlation. The part I object to is the use of anecdotal evidence to justify policy arguments.

Why mandatory certification? Are gun accidents special, or should we have mandatory certification for all dangerous tools?

So what are deadly tools that are abundant and don't require certification? Knives don't count, it's practically impossible accidentally to kill yourself with one. There are about 200 million guns in USA, we are talking about this abundant - within this order of magnitude.

Why does abundance matter? Even if only a few people own circular saws, shouldn't we protect those people from themselves too? Where and how do you decide where to draw the line?

Don't they have already classes about alcohol, drug abuse in schools?

Yes, perfect examples! Alcohol is a terrible deadly drug that causes plenty of senseless death, yet we acknowledged the result of prohibition no matter how good our intentions. If your proposal is not certification but free education, I couldn't agree more.

Also learn to read...

Cuolnd't raed taht, sry. Plz keep rpeeting it insessantlee, it is qwite reveeling.

[SlaveInDebt]

Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

[vampire]

Why does abundance matter? Even if only a few people own circular saws, shouldn't we protect those people from themselves too? Where and how do you decide where to draw the line?

Don't they have already classes about alcohol, drug abuse in schools?

Yes, perfect examples! Alcohol is a terrible deadly drug that causes plenty of senseless death, yet we acknowledged the result of prohibition no matter how good our intentions. If your proposal is not certification but free education, I couldn't agree more.

Also learn to read...

Cuolnd't raed taht, sry. Plz keep rpeeting it insessantlee, it is qwite reveeling.

1) Alcohol is controlled in many ways. The last law was passed by Reagan. Vampire is right as usually.
2) Cars are licensed, since you can hurt someone else with it. Guns are the same, you can hurt someone else accidentally. With chainsaw not so much. Vampire is right as usually.

Any more arguments out of you?