RE: AND WHY ?

RE: AND WHY ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns. There's a corollary to that which is less popular with second amendment fundamentalists, though: how many of these shootists would be competent, or even have the balls to try, to kill somebody without a gun? However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun. CCW holders spend more time at the range than cops. When they stop a shooting spree there are only about a third as many casulaties as when the cops do. They are only 1/4 as likely to shoot an innocent bystander as cops, although this is somewhat distorted by the fact that there is a better chance of only the ccw holder and the attacker present. Cops 10% the crime rate of the general population. CCW holders have 10% the crime rate of cops. I love to see people lacking the guts to carry assuming that those who do carry lack the guts to act. Even if they don't act no one is worse for the fact. It has been demonstrated that when ccw comes into play the fact that someone might shoot the bad guy cuts down on crime.

Lucylastic -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:36:30 AM)
you are nucking futz

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:39:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Because, despite the rest of the world proving that less guns is better and safer, they believe it is their god-given right to bear arms. If the conditions in any other country are not the same as in the US, with only the allowing of gun ownership being the difference, then any claim that the US's violence rates will drop with guns being out of the equation are, at the very least, conjecture, and little more than a shitty hypothesis at the very best. https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns. Most of us 'anti-gun' people aren't arguing the violence rates - just the easy deaths caused by guns, or more precisely, the prolific ownership and use of such. Even if the level of violence were identical, the country with a gun ownership culture will have many more deaths than the one without such an in-grained culture. And whilst gun nuts seem to think we advocate banning guns, actually we don't. Many so-called 'gun free' countries still have guns, but the laws aren't quite so liberal and lax. That's where the difference lies, not the banning of guns per se. You don't give a shit about the level of violence, only whether or not a gun was involved. That's about the most myopic line of thinking I've ever heard (in the gun debate realm). You are blaming a tool, and not what's driving the decision to use the tool. Absolutely fucking stupid. If we got rid of all the guns in the US (and I understand that's not what most anti-gun nuts are trying to do), of course there would be fewer acts of violence (including homicides) committed where a gun was involved. But, the amount of violence committed (including homicides) with other "tools" would increase, and there just might be the same amount of violence overall. However, you reduce the things that are causing people to choose violence, and you'll have a reduction of violence (including homicide), regardless of the tool chosen. You are missing the label, as usual, Desi. The problem with a gun, as opposed to any other 'tool', is that you can kill someone from quite a distance. You can't do that with other tools. Even if the level of violence were the same, you'd have far less killings without the prolification of guns than you have in your current gun culture. There's the difference - and it's a huge one. It's not myopic at all. It's simple statistics of survival rates of violence when a gun is used and when one isn't. I'm not saying that there would be fewer acts of violence (as you seem to posit) but the number of deaths would drop significantly. And that's the point we anti-gun people are putting forward. It really is as simple as that. All the stats everywhere show the difference. ETA: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun. It doesn't matter if it's 5 out of every 100 or 5,000 out of every 100,000 - it's still 5% although there's a big difference between 5 and 5,000 numerically. The stats most of us quote are normalised (per 100,000 capita), not actual physical numbers. So your premise here doesn't hold true. I would also pose this: how much easier is it to pull a gun and shoot than to assess the opponent to see if you could tackle them without a gun? I'd wager that easy access to guns is certainly a big contribution to the number of deaths. You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban. Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled. Did you ever look up Heller? Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were. Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive. Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:40:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Because, despite the rest of the world proving that less guns is better and safer, they believe it is their god-given right to bear arms. If the conditions in any other country are not the same as in the US, with only the allowing of gun ownership being the difference, then any claim that the US's violence rates will drop with guns being out of the equation are, at the very least, conjecture, and little more than a shitty hypothesis at the very best. https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns. Most of us 'anti-gun' people aren't arguing the violence rates - just the easy deaths caused by guns, or more precisely, the prolific ownership and use of such. Even if the level of violence were identical, the country with a gun ownership culture will have many more deaths than the one without such an in-grained culture. And whilst gun nuts seem to think we advocate banning guns, actually we don't. Many so-called 'gun free' countries still have guns, but the laws aren't quite so liberal and lax. That's where the difference lies, not the banning of guns per se. You don't give a shit about the level of violence, only whether or not a gun was involved. That's about the most myopic line of thinking I've ever heard (in the gun debate realm). You are blaming a tool, and not what's driving the decision to use the tool. Absolutely fucking stupid. If we got rid of all the guns in the US (and I understand that's not what most anti-gun nuts are trying to do), of course there would be fewer acts of violence (including homicides) committed where a gun was involved. But, the amount of violence committed (including homicides) with other "tools" would increase, and there just might be the same amount of violence overall. However, you reduce the things that are causing people to choose violence, and you'll have a reduction of violence (including homicide), regardless of the tool chosen. You are missing the label, as usual, Desi. The problem with a gun, as opposed to any other 'tool', is that you can kill someone from quite a distance. You can't do that with other tools. Even if the level of violence were the same, you'd have far less killings without the prolification of guns than you have in your current gun culture. There's the difference - and it's a huge one. It's not myopic at all. It's simple statistics of survival rates of violence when a gun is used and when one isn't. I'm not saying that there would be fewer acts of violence (as you seem to posit) but the number of deaths would drop significantly. And that's the point we anti-gun people are putting forward. It really is as simple as that. All the stats everywhere show the difference. ETA: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun. It doesn't matter if it's 5 out of every 100 or 5,000 out of every 100,000 - it's still 5% although there's a big difference between 5 and 5,000 numerically. The stats most of us quote are normalised (per 100,000 capita), not actual physical numbers. So your premise here doesn't hold true. I would also pose this: how much easier is it to pull a gun and shoot than to assess the opponent to see if you could tackle them without a gun? I'd wager that easy access to guns is certainly a big contribution to the number of deaths. I notice that you refused to answer any of the questions I asked earlier in this thread.

vincentML -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:52:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns. There's a corollary to that which is less popular with second amendment fundamentalists, though: how many of these shootists would be competent, or even have the balls to try, to kill somebody without a gun? However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun. In Australia, from what I read, there was a massacre at Port Arthur resort in Tasmania in 1996. Thereafter, automatic and semi-automatic weapons ownership was banned. In the decade before the Port Arthur incident there were eleven mass killings. There have been none since. That is pretty informative.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:56:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban. Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled. Did you ever look up Heller? Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were. Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive. Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have. The DC experiment was a guaranteed failure before it started. I gave you the answer as to why some time ago on how this happens. The ONLY way any decent gun control is able to work is if it is nationwide, not a piddly tiny spot in a huge country. Aaand, more to the point, enforce it across the whole country. Get caught with a gun? Minimum of 6 months incarceration and the gun(s) destroyed. It's like banning one shop from selling bubble gum when everyone can walk around the corner and buy it from a dozen other shops. Then pointing to the lack of success in reducing bubble gum on the streets and advocating that banning bubble gum sales doesn't reduce street fouling. But of course, you and other gun-nuts point to the likes of the DC experiment and spout that because it didn't work there it won't work anywhere. It was an ill-thought futile exercise in guaranteed failure.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 11:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I like Whittle's final line of analysis: [paraphrased] Maybe it's not the guns, but the people holding the guns. There's a corollary to that which is less popular with second amendment fundamentalists, though: how many of these shootists would be competent, or even have the balls to try, to kill somebody without a gun? However, if there were fewer people even considering killing another person, there would be fewer homicides, and fewer homicides using guns. It's a poser, for sure, but that's only because we have no way to know how many would have still killed, or attempted to kill another without access to a gun. In Australia, from what I read, there was a massacre at Port Arthur resort in Tasmania in 1996. Thereafter, automatic and semi-automatic weapons ownership was banned. In the decade before the Port Arthur incident there were eleven mass killings. There have been none since. That is pretty informative. And leaves out one very important detail. The crime rate since those laws were passed are no lower than they were beforehand, the laws had no effect. New Zeland had a "massacre" at the about same time if anything expanded gun rights, and have had as good a result as Australia.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:03:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban. Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled. Did you ever look up Heller? Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were. Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive. Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have. The DC experiment was a guaranteed failure before it started. I gave you the answer as to why some time ago on how this happens. The ONLY way any decent gun control is able to work is if it is nationwide, not a piddly tiny spot in a huge country. Aaand, more to the point, enforce it across the whole country. Get caught with a gun? Minimum of 6 months incarceration and the gun(s) destroyed. It's like banning one shop from selling bubble gum when everyone can walk around the corner and buy it from a dozen other shops. Then pointing to the lack of success in reducing bubble gum on the streets and advocating that banning bubble gum sales doesn't reduce street fouling. But of course, you and other gun-nuts point to the likes of the DC experiment and spout that because it didn't work there it won't work anywhere. It was an ill-thought futile exercise in guaranteed failure. You speak from blind willful ignorance, the murder rate with guns didn't change. The murder rate with knives and guns were what made the increase happen. Now how does more liberal gun laws in VA translate to more people being beaten to death in DC. For your position to have any bearing you have to explain that. You refuse to take note of where the crime increase came from. I take it you haven't bother to check on how the DC law banning inoccent people from having weapons, that would undermine your case.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:17:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You are wrong, see what happened in DC when they enacted their ban. Huge increase in murders, the murder rate with firearms stayed the same, but due to the increase in murders with other weapons the murder rate doubled. Did you ever look up Heller? Did you ever see what the provisions of the DC law were. Did you ever come to realise that all they did was disarm the law abiding people and make them vulnerable to every thug with a knive. Apparently you have nicer thugs than we have. The DC experiment was a guaranteed failure before it started. I gave you the answer as to why some time ago on how this happens. The ONLY way any decent gun control is able to work is if it is nationwide, not a piddly tiny spot in a huge country. Aaand, more to the point, enforce it across the whole country. Get caught with a gun? Minimum of 6 months incarceration and the gun(s) destroyed. It's like banning one shop from selling bubble gum when everyone can walk around the corner and buy it from a dozen other shops. Then pointing to the lack of success in reducing bubble gum on the streets and advocating that banning bubble gum sales doesn't reduce street fouling. But of course, you and other gun-nuts point to the likes of the DC experiment and spout that because it didn't work there it won't work anywhere. It was an ill-thought futile exercise in guaranteed failure. Please explain to me how a nation wide gun ban would have kept all those people (and this is where the crime increase came from) in DC from being beaten and stabbed to death, as opposed to opening people in the rest of the country to the same fate.

vincentML -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:35:43 PM)
quote: But you might want to look at current statistics on people suffering those disqualifying conditions. How can there be statistics on disqualifying conditions when reporting is not mandatory and when a judgment by a government agency or a court is required by the law? And isn't it ironic that the Right resists using the terror watch list but will use medical records to ban gun ownership? So, here is the conundrum . . personal medical records are or should be private property. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A good constitutional lawyer can probably make a case for violation of the Fourth Amendment if mandatory reporting were the law. People with mental health issues have not committed a crime (until they do) Conservatives and Libertarians who profess to cherish personal liberty are willing to have government judge individual citizens' potential for future crimes. That is a head scratcher. It is worse than having libraries report which books your read. quote: If it came to the very situation that would make the gun owners fight against the government, how many of you anti gun people are going to stand back and do nothing. Regardless of the pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution my points are that in the unlikely event of such a crisis, if they came for your guns the few who would fight back do not have the fire power to resist the might of the US Military, and secondly, such an imagining is the paranoia that the gun sellers have generated. It is not my paranoia. I do not for a moment believe such an event is conceivable. And let's remember one very, very important thing: the Second Amendment derives from a time when there were only thirteen states in the union, each distrustful of the others and of the British and of France. That excuse for bearing arms is really antiquated. It is an absurd rationalization, imo.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Can an idividual own a hand gun? Not here, no. They were effectively banned in 1997. And most people see no need to have one either. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Can an idividual keep what guns you allow in their homes and loaded? Yes. With the caveat that each and every firearm is individually registered and licensed (unlike the US). quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Does your law recognize such a thing as dgu? DGU is a specific US term, but no. If you shoot someone, for whatever reason (even in self-defense), if that person dies, the shooter faces a murder charge. If it can be proved that it was a justified defense, that sentence is very likely to be commuted to a suspended sentence of manslaughter or dismissed altogether. There is no automatic right to self defense with a firearm. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You say that the law cuts down on firearm ownership, doesn't that mean that you ban them from the majority of people. Not at all. We are not banned from owning guns, only certain types of guns and how many. It means we have stricter rules on what you can own and where you can use them. For instance, the whole country is a gun free zone except in designated hunting areas at certain specified times. The thing is, we don't distrust our government enough nor are paranoid enough for the majority of people to actually want to own one. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Don't you have to prove a "need" for a firearm to the satisfaction of someone who's job it is to keep firearm ownership down to "reasonable" levels? It is nobody's "job" to keep firearm ownership down to any level. But yes, you have to justify why you want a firearm and it has to be licensed separately from other firearms. In other words, there is no blanket license to own as many as you want. But, it's surprisingly easy to get a license for a firearm; it's not as hard as you think. The thing is, most of us don't want one or see the need for having one. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Don't we have a constitutionally garaunteed right to own a firearm unless the government can find a specific reason why a specific individual cannot own one. That's only in the US. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Don't you understand that when the citizen has to prove a need it is an oppressive government and when it onus is on the government to prove why, not some people, but each individual, cannot exercise an action it is freer. Actually no. Freedom is only as good as the perception and all freedoms come with caveats and strings. Total freedom without such strings is called anarchy. We also don't see it as oppressive either. We are happy that most people - A) don't have any firearms; and B) have no wish to own firearms; and C) enjoy a much 'free-er' lifestyle knowing our schools aren't like prisons and we aren't likely to get our brains blown away by some nutter with a gun who feels he is more entitled than you; and D) are not likely to encounter someone with a gun - even an assailant or a burglar. And before you start all the crap about getting killed with knives etc, the survival rate of being shot is much lower than a knife wound AND if you aren't near your assailant you aren't likely to die like you could from a distance by a gun. I know this mindset is something you cannot wrap your head around. You cannot grasp just how much more freedom we have by not having guns owned by every Tom Dick and Harry you might happen to come across. You don't understand that even in a very heated argument, you aren't likely to get your brains splattered all over the sidewalk.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:42:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Please explain to me how a nation wide gun ban would have kept all those people (and this is where the crime increase came from) in DC from being beaten and stabbed to death, as opposed to opening people in the rest of the country to the same fate. Crime increase, yes. Deaths from stabbings, yes. Subtract the deaths and serious injuries from gun use..... pales into insignificance. A small increase in a small number is still small. A near complete eradication of a huge number makes a big difference. You guys just can't see that.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:44:53 PM)
Not here, no. They were effectively banned in 1997. And most people see no need to have one either. That is a ban. You have already disproved your claim. We tried that in DC and all we got was a bunch of people stabbed and beaten to death.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:46:53 PM)
Yes. With the caveat that each and every firearm is individually registered and licensed (unlike the US). So that the government can easily collect them when they want. Don't dismiss this as paranoia, CA, NY and Conn. have all done this.

mnottertail -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:47:00 PM)
And in the red welfare state of Texas, the open carry pussies run, and shootings rise.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:49:09 PM)
DGU is a specific US term, but no. If you shoot someone, for whatever reason (even in self-defense), if that person dies, the shooter faces a murder charge. If it can be proved that it was a justified defense, that sentence is very likely to be commuted to a suspended sentence of manslaughter or dismissed altogether. There is no automatic right to self defense with a firearm. Be honest, there is no right to self defense, that alone makes your laws a violation of human rights. Even a dog has the right of self defense.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:51:36 PM)
Not at all. We are not banned from owning guns, only certain types of guns and how many. It means we have stricter rules on what you can own and where you can use them. You just make it very hard to own one, ban some, and tell yourself that you are only keeping them out of the hands of the wrong people, which is practically everyone. The thinking of brainwashed sheep.

BamaD -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:54:40 PM)
It is nobody's "job" to keep firearm ownership down to any level. But yes, you have to justify why you want a firearm and it has to be licensed separately from other firearms. And he had better never let the "wrong" person have one. Same thing. If a paper pusher has to make a decision and must prove going one way and not prove the other way he will make the safe decision. Another idea sold to sheep.

mnottertail -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:55:23 PM)
I am unaware on strictures to the number of guns you can own. I believe that is wide open.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/26/2016 12:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Not here, no. They were effectively banned in 1997. And most people see no need to have one either. That is a ban. You have already disproved your claim. We tried that in DC and all we got was a bunch of people stabbed and beaten to death. Not at all. If there were NO guns to be had, take away ALL the gun stats and see what's left. A surprisingly small number compared to what was the total beforehand. Think about it.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625