quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyJSirF
At 450 million people in the us the percentage of dead is so miniscule that it is an oddity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyJSirF

but in a country of over 475 million people .00000001% of our population shouldn't be used as a reason to change laws that affect all of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The Australian experience of gun control, (Australia has a similarly heterogeneous population, is also English speaking and subject to the rule of law, and so directly comparable to the US in this instance) is also compelling evidence that the introduction of strict gun laws in the mid 1990s did not result in anarchy or anything remotely approaching it. In fact crime rates fell after gun control was introduced. Again the opposite to your claim.

Directly comparable? I suppose if you look at land mass and the language spoken that's true. But when you start comparing the population numbers and the number of large cities they are not even close. According to the internet your largest city has around 4.5 million people. The total of your 5 biggest cities doesn't come close to the total in New York alone. Throw in the mix of cultures that we have there and the poverty in a lot of the areas and you are going to have an increase in violence. Trying to blame the weapon they chose is just stupid and won't solve anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The Australian experience of gun control, (Australia has a similarly heterogeneous population, is also English speaking and subject to the rule of law, and so directly comparable to the US in this instance) is also compelling evidence that the introduction of strict gun laws in the mid 1990s did not result in anarchy or anything remotely approaching it. In fact crime rates fell after gun control was introduced. Again the opposite to your claim.

Directly comparable? I suppose if you look at land mass and the language spoken that's true. But when you start comparing the population numbers and the number of large cities they are not even close. According to the internet your largest city has around 4.5 million people. The total of your 5 biggest cities doesn't come close to the total in New York alone. Throw in the mix of cultures that we have there and the poverty in a lot of the areas and you are going to have an increase in violence. Trying to blame the weapon they chose is just stupid and won't solve anything.

Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that Americans are gun-toting lunatics because their population density is higher?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The Gun control debate is usually about ends and what it misses are the differing fundamental assumptions that people operate from. This poll is aimed at effectively gaining an idea of the popularity of a few of these various presuppositions. I don't have a specific agenda here, and you may not wish to play along but it might be worth giving it a go.

A) Do you effectively believe that free access to weapons is a societal problem which causes harm? If no, then choose option 8 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question.

B) Does the individual's right to a weapon trump the harm which the free access of weapons provides? If no, then choose option 7 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question.

C) Does your right to a weapon trump societal harm primarily because of the Constitution or for your own reasons? If the Constitution, then choose option 6 in the poll. Otherwise proceed.

D) Do you need a justification for having a gun? Or is it your right and all other considerations are irrelevant? If you don't need a justification for owning a gun and it's your right regardless of what else is happening in society, choose option 5.

E) Does your right to a gun trump societal harm because you need to defend yourself against your fellow citizens or against the government or both? If citizens choose option 4, if the government, choose option 3, if both, choose option 2.

If you despise this poll and the person who made it, choose option 1... but only after choosing one of the other options first.

See, this is not the debate. It's not guns or no guns -- it's what guns, and under what circumstances.

This is the debate:



Anything else is simply parroting the modern NRA nonsense, in its present day capacity as shill for the gun manufacturers.

And it's unnecessary, because the "no restrictions ever" gun-tokers are pretty gullible and will buy whatever special gun/ammo you come up with and tell them is potentially threatened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

. . . and now it's time for the "well-regulated" part.

Because it's clearly not running well at present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

. . . and now it's time for the "well-regulated" part.

Because it's clearly not running well at present.

This tired "argument" again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed.

It would be interesting to see the NRA pushing for mandatory training.

Certainly we'd have a better idea who's holding and firing these weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo
I think it's more of a genetic thing; we've been gun toting lunatics since long before the revolution and constitution. I know I've passed it on to my son.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo

People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed.

It would be interesting to see the NRA pushing for mandatory training.

Certainly we'd have a better idea who's holding and firing these weapons.

Imagine for a moment you had to attend a government-mandated class in order to vote. The class was held on Tuesdays at 8am through 3pm. You are unable to vote until you attend this class. Is this constitutional?

Same situation except the government could limit your speech or who you got together with until you attended a class. Is this constitutional?

How, then, is it constitutional to mandate a class for any other right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrevibo
I think it's more of a genetic thing; we've been gun toting lunatics since long before the revolution and constitution. I know I've passed it on to my son.

No. Your contention is the product of a mind trying to have a discussion about a subject it's way too stupid to comprehend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
The Gun control debate is usually about ends and what it misses are the differing fundamental assumptions that people operate from. This poll is aimed at effectively gaining an idea of the popularity of a few of these various presuppositions. I don't have a specific agenda here, and you may not wish to play along but it might be worth giving it a go.

A) Do you effectively believe that free access to weapons is a societal problem which causes harm? If no, then choose option 8 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question.

B) Does the individual's right to a weapon trump the harm which the free access of weapons provides? If no, then choose option 7 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question.

C) Does your right to a weapon trump societal harm primarily because of the Constitution or for your own reasons? If the Constitution, then choose option 6 in the poll. Otherwise proceed.

D) Do you need a justification for having a gun? Or is it your right and all other considerations are irrelevant? If you don't need a justification for owning a gun and it's your right regardless of what else is happening in society, choose option 5.

E) Does your right to a gun trump societal harm because you need to defend yourself against your fellow citizens or against the government or both? If citizens choose option 4, if the government, choose option 3, if both, choose option 2.

If you despise this poll and the person who made it, choose option 1... but only after choosing one of the other options first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Any other imagined restrictions you want to add to your hypothetical bullshit?

Because just making shit up is also a logical fallacy.

Imagine you were accused of a crime, and the prosecution could just bring in irrelevant evidence . . .



You should have attended a few more classes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, if you come up with any logical arguments free of fallacies and stuff you just make up, come on back and lay them out.