|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Guns | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
just picking a random post of your's to reply to.
I really wish I could find two specific articles. One is from Britain--it compares the total number of homicides in the UK to that of NYC. As I recall, NYC homicides does more than just outnumber the UK's--it's almost off the chart, you could say. NYC also has a population that is smaller than the grand total of the UK. The other is from South Korea--they have had, as I recall from the article, a single shooting spree like what happened at VT. One shooting spree in over 50 years of existence. (and the death toll was less from the SK shooting). In both these countries, citizens are not allowed to own guns. In both these countries, you don't see what happens here, generally. as you keep on saying, sure, the criminals will get the guns. The experience of these two countries alone, though, seem to counter the argument that "more guns = less killing" (vast simplification of what you're saying). If I could find these damn articles, I'll post them. Unfortunately, they're probably lost somewhere in all the VT coverage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
How was life in ancient Aztec times even before Cortez? Yes, and yet even though they had a lack of guns, there was not a sudden increase in "Home invasion" robberies. And further, no matter how violent the Aztec's were, do you think they lost more people before or after Cortez showed up with his guns?
Says the guy who claims that disarming this nation will somehow erase the vast majority of violence in it. Where did I EVER imply that disarming people would reduce violence? I make no claims about the number of violent incidents, I do however claim that a crazy person with a pointy stick is LESS dangerous than a crazy person with a gatling gun. A claim which you continue to attempt to refute with no success.
Please explain to me how in the world you can get a stat on how many houses WERENT broken into? So, now it's my fault that you can't substantiate your claims. Very nice. How about you stop making stuff up if even you can support the stuff you are saying.
the only one giving them was nator, and all of hers were quite vague and misleading. There's nothing misleading about Nator's posts. Just because they COMPLETELY disagree with your crazy theories doesn't mean they are misleading. It means that you are very very wrong.
You can go to shooting ranges. You can exterminate yard rodents on large property Can you please explain why you can only kill rodents with a hand gun and not with a shotgun or rifle. Hand guns are made to kill people - plain and simple. You don't need to conceal guns from the target at the range. You don't need to conceal them from the rats in the backyard.
Is your beef with guns in general, or just handguns? I have a particular beef with hand guns and automatic rifles. I have an even bigger beef with the mid-west redneck mentality of shooting up rusted out cars with fully automatic machine guns cuz "loud noises and stuff blowing up is cool."
Nah, they just want to steal some crap to get a fix. Criminals stealing for a fix are much more likely to steal from an empty house than an occupied one. Guns or no guns - it's simply easier to steal from people who aren't home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Answer my question, for once I honestly don't know what you question was. You just kept saying "yes or no" "yes or no"
Consider this: If somebody's bent on killing themselves, slitting arteries with a knife is just as easy, if not easier, than pulling the trigger. What does this have to do with anything? No one is talking about suicides here.
without considering that the same could very well happen anyway without a gun. On a very technical level, no it simply can't. I defy you to shoot anyone with a knife. On a more "Oh you think this" level, you keep harping on this idea that if someone has a knife they can just kill anyone they want, as fast as they want, without making a noise, a mess, or getting tired. This is simply ridiculous. If Cho went on a "stabby spree" he MIGHT have successfully killed 1 person. More likely than not, he'd have simply wounded a couple. Instead, this pint sized maniac was able to point and shoot, and you see the results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? note: it's illegal to kill people. it doesn't have to be illegal to own a gun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but believe me the deathtoll from accidental shootings in the US is WAY higher than 32 this year. And you are claiming it's been less than 32 over the 200+ year history of the country? come on. but he's provided at least some kidn of numbering, and you haven't. not here, and not in the last thread when i asked for it. don't make claims about this shit when you don't have the numbers yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Some guns should be taken away from private citizens because there is no good reason for a private citizen to have them. Alternatively, if private citizens think they need, say, certain military-style weapons, then the hoops they should have to jump through and the insurance they should be required to purchase aught to be extensive and significant. It should be difficult to get them. Very difficult. difficult, yes. impossible, no. remember the idea of invasion. we may think we're immune, but we aren't. not to mention our own government which is getting more fascist by the day.
There's a reason this kind of thing is extremely rare in Japan and Europe. demonstrate rare. i'll buy it, just demonstrate it. keep in mind switzerland.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
” Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.iv ... ” From 1998 to 2001, more than 2,800 people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictionswere able to purchase guns without being identified by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.x i'll bet that's more likely a result of the kind of person who generally owns a weapon in the light of norms against them than any kind of sway the weapon may hold over an individual's desire to kill. and clearly the background check system is flawed. so we fix it. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
the "crime menace" lurking out there waiting to break in and rape your women. But there's NO evidence that supports the theory. how many years have you been a woman? you are aware that something like NEARLY EVERY WOMAN EVER has been sexually assaulted in some way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i just wanted to say that even if no one else noted it, i appreciate your comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One_Charred_Wing Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
I appriciate your polite reasoning.
I'll look up a figure if you want, but last I heard the delinquency of youth and other factors are much worse in Britain than they are in America.
as you keep on saying, sure, the criminals will get the guns. The experience of these two countries alone, though, seem to counter the argument that "more guns = less killing" (vast simplification of what you're saying). Possible, but this also doesn't mean less guns=less killing. Might as well defend ourselves so there will be less killing, at least of the innocent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
it's illegal to kill people. it doesn't have to be illegal to own a gun. Then, by this thinking, it's safe to assume that you are pro-gatling gun. Since it's illegal to kill one person, and illegal to kill many people, why not just equip everyone with the most lethal weapons availble and hope they stick to the honor system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
he's provided at least some kidn of numbering, and you haven't. You want me to make up numbers? Okay 52. There happy. Now, if you'd bothered to read the entire thread you would notice that Nator has provided some very specific numbers and dates. As for this:
don't make claims about this shit when you don't have the numbers yourself. I guess the 24 hour time out wasn't long enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One_Charred_Wing Member (Idle past 6177 days) Posts: 690 From: USA West Coast Joined: |
To tackle your other post, this was my question that you have failed to answer for about 60 posts now:
Yes or no, do you believe that guns cause people to kill eachother. Please answer the question 'yes or no' directly before providing a more detailed response. After you answer my first question, IF you have the spine to actually answer it, could you please explain in detail your problem with guns and what you think we should do about it? I hope you stop dodging my questions now. Oh, and yes, maniacs are more dangerous with guns. But say we banned guns. You think Cho wouldn't have weasled his way through the black market to get the guns necessary for this? Hell, he might've gotten some better stuff to kill MORE people while he was going through that red tape.
Yes, and yet even though they had a lack of guns, there was not a sudden increase in "Home invasion" robberies. Probably because the Aztecs were always out pillaging other places to get sacrifices. Would you call what they do 'home invasion'? I would want a gun if the Aztecs wanted to put my still-beating heart on a pedestal.
And further, no matter how violent the Aztec's were, do you think they lost more people before or after Cortez showed up with his guns? Who knows, but I'll bet counting the sacrifices, they killed more people in their history than the massive dent Cortez put in their population.
Where did I EVER imply that disarming people would reduce violence? I make no claims about the number of violent incidents, I do however claim that a crazy person with a pointy stick is LESS dangerous than a crazy person with a gatling gun. A claim which you continue to attempt to refute with no success. Oh, I don't know. Maybe when you gave the example of the housewife who, in the heat of passion, killed her husband with a gun? Maybe every time you bring up VT? I agree with your latter point; I NEVER tried to refute it. I DID, however, assert that knives are more dangerous than you think, especially if you know how to use one. Money says Cho bothered to learn the proper mechanics to maiming somebody with a pointy. Here's another dishonest use of quotes, that makes two for you:
ME writes: Please explain to me how in the world you can get a stat on how many houses WERENT broken into? So, now it's my fault that you can't substantiate your claims. Very nice. How about you stop making stuff up if even you can support the stuff you are saying You're asking me to tally negatives. How about we tally how many times Dan Carrol DOESN'T respond to one of our posts? Do you see the absurdity of your request now? How dare you claim that I made up that people break into homes, that rape happens, that there are circumstances in which it is appropiate to use a gun for home defense? An old man, who didn't own a gun, was stabbed and struck by a man in cold blood, in his own home, about a block from where my girlfriend's parents live. You think he would agree that this problem is made up? Shame on you.
There's nothing misleading about Nator's posts. Just because they COMPLETELY disagree with your crazy theories doesn't mean they are misleading. It means that you are very very wrong. How about you go back and read what I said while disecting her posts, instead of accusing me of disagreeing emptily. If you can find ways to refute my analysis of them, great. That's honest. You've yet to be very honest thusfar.
Can you please explain why you can only kill rodents with a hand gun and not with a shotgun or rifle. Hand guns are made to kill people - plain and simple. You don't need to conceal guns from the target at the range. You don't need to conceal them from the rats in the backyard. You CAN kill a rodent with a shotgun or rifle. That's just one example, though. You CAN kill a rodent with your bare hands, or with a chainsaw. Doesn't matter, it still proves that it's possible to do something other than kill a human being with a handgun, contrary to what you said.
have a particular beef with hand guns and automatic rifles. I have an even bigger beef with the mid-west redneck mentality of shooting up rusted out cars with fully automatic machine guns cuz "loud noises and stuff blowing up is cool." Why? Would you rather them shoot people so you can use it to fuel your absurd campaign against home defense? That's the only reason I can think of to have a problem with shooting inanimate objects that aren't yours.
Criminals stealing for a fix are much more likely to steal from an empty house than an occupied one. Guns or no guns - it's simply easier to steal from people who aren't home. Granted, but they DO steal from homes that are occupied. When this happens, the homeowners have the right to defend themselves. I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
keep in mind switzerland. Here we go again with Switzerland. No one on this thread is suggesting that members of the military be denied access to weapons in order to do their job. The citizens of Switzerland are obliged to serve their military. They are provided with military weapons and ammunition which remains locked and stored. The weapons and ammunition are routinely inspected to make sure this is true. There is a world of difference between a National Guardsman being issued a side arm, and a drunk hillbilly with a .357 in his waistband because he feels inadequate about his manhood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
NEARLY EVERY WOMAN EVER has been sexually assaulted in some way? For someone who came down on me for "not having numbers" this is a hell of a claim. It strikes me like something I would have heard in the early 90s in which a term like "sexual assault" is expanded to include oogling. You want us to believe that there is a 99% chance that the average American woman is going to be raped, you better bring some evidence. Also, please additionally prove that these rapes would have been disuaded by the presence of a hand gun in the house, since that's what we are discussing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024