Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 151 of 301 (398186)
04-29-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Excuse me?
Holy crap are you ever paranoid!
now i'm paranoid and a conservative. you're clearly incapable of reading.
You think it's my fault that there are unreported accidental gun deaths. Wow!
no. i'm saying it's your fault that we haven't got a number of reported accidental deaths as i've asked you for it more than four times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 12:37 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 6:32 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 301 (398187)
04-29-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 3:29 PM


Got me? Got who? :-S
But that doesn't change the fact that owning the handgun makes you more likely to be a victim of violence across the board.
Can you substantiate that claim with even a shred of evidence?
Color of skin, socio-economic conditions, ineffectual police force - none of these are factors in that overall statistic.
WOW! That is one of the most ignorant statements I've read on the entire thread. Seriously, these things play a role, and not a role, but a role. These things are a BIG part of the problem and you continue to refuse recognising their role in the issue.
Owning a hand gun makes you more likely to die from hand gun violence (particularly your own hand gun) than not owning a hand gun.
Of course it does; no shit. Owning a steak knife makes you more likely to die from an accidental steak knifing. Owning an iron makes you more likely to get burned by an iron. Owning a hair-dryer makes it more likely you will get electrocuted by a hair-dryer. Whenever you own anything, you are always more likely to suffer some negative effect from that item than if you did not own it... Hell, owning a computer makes me more likely to die from an exploding CRT. What you are saying here proves nothing.
You could say, and may be right, that the urban poor are even more likely to die from handgun violence than the rural poor or the suburban rich.
Do you know how those people get their guns? Hmm... hmmm... oh... wait... I'm getting a vision... why, that's right, ILLEGALLY! Not to mention the fact that there has been violence in these communities long before guns were all that common. Which is, of course, another point you refuse to address.
None of those things are designed specifically for killing lots and lots of people.
What does it matter what it's designed for? What it's used for is more important; and the entity responsible for making the what will it be used for decision is not the gun... it's the...”here it comes again”PERSON!
Now, I have a lot of homework, so I will make a list of all the points that you have failed to address and then come back and read this after my work is done and you have addressed them:
1) Statistics show no sign of [legal] guns and crime being related; why do you still think it's the guns' fault?
2) Statistics DO show relation between oppressed minorities and murder”these statistics don't worry with what tool was used for the murder, if any”; why do you continue to deny that social factors play a major role?
3) People A have been killing off people B since the time there were people... whether you think that was 100 kya, 6 kya, or 2 mya. Haven't you overlooked the fact that people still kill people with or without guns? Will you tell me why this doesn't ride negatively on your argument?
4) The people who want to commit crimes, and want to use guns to commit those crimes, will get the guns whether laws are put in place to prevent them from doing so or not; hell, most of them get the things illegally the way it is. How will taking guns away from law-abiding citizens prevent the criminals”the ones who commit the crimes you are so concerned about”from getting guns the same way they always have: illegally?
5) ... Hmmm... I will have to read the rest of your messages to finish populating the list, but I think this is a good start.
Address each of these points, one at a time, in your next post. Any points which you leave un-addressed I will only have to assume you have no counter argument for.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : coding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 3:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 5:45 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 165 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 6:58 PM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 301 (398191)
04-29-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 3:05 PM


Again, another strange dichotomy. It is the threat of nuclear proliferation that is the very thing that keeps us all in check.
What? I said there are legal barriers against owning nuclear weapons. If those barriers were lifted, so Iran was allowed to get nukes without interference and then use them. In this case part of the responsibility for this falls on those that lifted the legal barriers.
Right, but we do have nukes. So unless you can invent a time machine we have to deal with reality.
Obviously. I think you might have misundertood me there.
We are enforcing that law! But really, this all off-topic.
Yes we are enforcing that law. And a good job too. It is off topic because I never mentioned enforcing the law. I was talking about overturning the law. That is to say: get rid of the nuke ban.
No citizen in the UK is allowed to legally own a gun, right?
Not right. Some citizens can own a gun.
Do the bad guys get them anyway through nefarious means?
Not all of them. I know lots of 'bad guys', and none of them even know how to get hold of a gun, and many wouldn't even want to (if you get caught with it, you're screwed).
Some bad guys do get them anyway, obviously.
The reason why British law enforcement only recently started arming themselves with more than wooden sticks is because the bad guys are carrying firearms, right?
Most law enforcement officers don't don't carry firearms because not many bad guys have guns. Also mostly good guys who do stupid impulsive acts of violence don't have guns, so there is little to fear when pulling someone over. There are specialist armed units for when firearms posession is suspected.
The bad guys still have them.
But less of them.
But I think it is a disservice to penalize every one who would use it appropriately simply because some people don't.
A balance should be applied. The costs of all those times you need to use a legally owned gun appropriately but don't have it versus all of those times legally owned guns are used inappropriately.
In the UK, we have balanced it towards heavy ownership restrictions. In the US, much less ownership restrictions.
Where is the right balance? Depends on the country and even the state.
The question is, has the US got the right balance? Is having free access to weapons in one zone, and possession bans in another zone, a recipe for disaster? Do citizens need gatling guns to defend themselves against the average burglar? etc etc.
If you really want to stop gun violence, stop protesting the guns and start protesting Hollywood. Makes perfect sense to me? If we didn't idolize this behavior there would be no need to act it out.
And after we go for Hollywood, we should turn to video games, and then perhaps books. Burn those violence glorifying books! Then theatre - get that violence filled Macbeth of our stages! And art too!
Art reflects humanity, and maybe there is some feedback - but the price to pay if we start censoring art? Cultural and financial disaster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 154 of 301 (398192)
04-29-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Jon
04-29-2007 2:50 PM


Re: ”CREDIBLE sources anybody?”
quote:
Well, no. I will read an article when it has raw data in it, or when it at least cites the sources of its raw data so I can go find it myself. As far as I know, the whole damn article could be just made up. Perhaps more credible sources?
Um, the guy stating stuff in the article IS the researcher. He is discussing HIS research on gun violence.
Do you really think that Harvard magazine (as in the world-famous prestigious Harvard University) is in the habit of publishing completely spurious articles?
Why don't you read the article and then tell me the specific flaws it has?
You wouldn't know what to do with raw data, anyway, Jon, so it's silly of you to demand it.
(It just occurred to me that you might not realize that it is very rare for even highly technical professional science journal articles to have the raw data in them. What you see in those charts and graphs and tables is not raw data, but the data that has been through statistical analysis. The raw data would appear as pages and pages and pages of numbers on Excel spreadsheets. Scientists will supply it to other scientists upon request but without the analysis it does nobody any good.)
quote:
It's the oppression that causes the violence, not the guns.
Yep.
But it's the easy access to handguns that causes nearly all the death.
People would be just as inclined to be violent, and would act on those inclinations just as often, but fewer people would die without such easy access to handguns.
Why is this so hard to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 2:50 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 5:41 PM nator has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 301 (398193)
04-29-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by nator
04-29-2007 5:28 PM


Re: ”CREDIBLE sources anybody?”
You wouldn't know what to do with raw data, anyway, Jon, so it's silly of you to demand it.
Personal attack? Our debate is over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 5:28 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 5:55 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 166 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 7:05 PM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 156 of 301 (398195)
04-29-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jon
04-29-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Got me? Got who? :-S
But that doesn't change the fact that owning the handgun makes you more likely to be a victim of violence across the board.
quote:
Can you substantiate that claim with even a shred of evidence?
Yes.
Read my posts in this thread.
quote:
Not to mention the fact that there has been violence in these communities long before guns were all that common.
Yes, but the lethality of that violence was much less before handguns were cheap and easy to get.
quote:
1)Statistics show no sign of [legal] guns and crime being related; why do you still think it's the guns' fault?
Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick, nearly all I've done on this thread is post statistics that show the opposite of your above claim.
Perhaps you can post some actual numbers yourself?
quote:
3) People A have been killing off people B since the time there were people... whether you think that was 100 kya, 6 kya, or 2 mya. Haven't you overlooked the fact that people still kill people with or without guns?
Jesus fucking Christ!
Nobody is saying that all violence would disappear if guns also disappeared, so you and everybody else, STOP USING THAT STRAWMAN.
Now, I am going to type this, for I think the fourth time in this thread. Please read it. More than once if you have to.
Easy access to guns makes the violence that is going to happen anyway much more lethal, especially easily concealed handguns that can fire many rounds very quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 4:31 PM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 157 of 301 (398196)
04-29-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Jon
04-29-2007 5:41 PM


Re: ”CREDIBLE sources anybody?”
You wouldn't know what to do with raw data, anyway, Jon, so it's silly of you to demand it.
quote:
Personal attack? Our debate is over.
It appears that you are rather transparently looking for a way to get out of this argument because you are losing so miserably, but this ain't it.
Are you saying that you actually DO know what to do with raw scientific data? Like, you've done statistical analysis of experimental results, or taken a scientific statistics course?
I certainly wouldn't even begin to know what to do, as I have zero background nor any training whatsoever in statistical analysis.
It is not a personal attack to presume that a non-science major freshman in college doesn't understand scientific statistical analysis.
I'm sorry if I bruised your tender feelings regarding your educational levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 5:41 PM Jon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 158 of 301 (398198)
04-29-2007 6:01 PM


so, pro-gun folks...
I was wondering if we can get any links to statistics or studies or any sort of objective analysis to support your arguments.
I have certainly been supporting mine with such, but there's been nothing from your side.
Emotion-laden "What-if" scenarios and unsupported "It's so obvious" statments don't really send the objectivity meter very high, you know.

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 159 of 301 (398200)
04-29-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Bren, clear things up
you're not debating honestly
Well if your definition of debating honestly is to attribute your opponent with false statements then you are right. I'm not doing what you do. I don't find it helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 4:02 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 6:47 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 160 of 301 (398201)
04-29-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by macaroniandcheese
04-29-2007 4:03 PM


Re: Excuse me?
we haven't got a number of reported accidental deat
Nator has already posted a number of statistics about gun deaths. What specifically is your problem with his posts that you feel I need to add to them.
Additionally, why exactly are you asking for "accidental death" numbers anyway? Can you at least reference the point in the earlier post you are debating?
Or are you refrencing back to the other thread?
You need to be clearer, otherwise your demands are just white noise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 4:03 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 6:34 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 164 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 6:55 PM Nuggin has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 161 of 301 (398202)
04-29-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 6:32 PM


Re: Excuse me?
FYI, and not that it matters, but I'm a "she".
Click on my avatar. It's me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 6:32 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Zhimbo, posted 04-29-2007 6:37 PM nator has not replied
 Message 167 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 7:08 PM nator has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 162 of 301 (398204)
04-29-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by nator
04-29-2007 6:34 PM


Re: Excuse me?
quote:
FYI, and not that it matters, but I'm a "she".
I, for one, am grateful for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 6:34 PM nator has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 163 of 301 (398206)
04-29-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 6:30 PM


Re: Bren, clear things up
http://EvC Forum: Guns -->EvC Forum: Guns
...
Oh please. I would hazzard a guess that it's the #1 reason red necks buy pistols.
Look at the needless length of the barrel. Look at the fact that the "girly" guns are the tiny little 1 or 2 shooters.
...
But how much do you want to be that every drunken hillbilly owns a hand gun?
Anyway, my point was not that only drunk killbillies have handguns, it's that there is "a world of difference" between the two categories.
The previous post was not about women defending themselves, it was about the relatively low amount of gun crime in Switzerland, where the people have been issued guns as part of their military service.
The yahoo who wants a BIG GUN to shoot off into the air on Cinco De Mayo is very different than the drafted Swiss man who is assigned a machine gun to keep in his attic weither he wants one or not.
http://EvC Forum: Guns -->EvC Forum: Guns
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.
http://EvC Forum: Guns -->EvC Forum: Guns
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.
http://EvC Forum: Guns -->EvC Forum: Guns
And the kid died right? Or did he just have to get stitches? Do you think the kid would have just needed stitches of this same drunk idiot accidently put a 9mm round between the guys eyes?
http://EvC Forum: Guns -->EvC Forum: Guns
But preventing those same lousy parents from stockpiling assualt rifles and glocks will.
http://EvC Forum: Guns -->EvC Forum: Guns
You are suggesting that the only thing keeping criminals from instituting a nationwide killing spree is the off chance that someone might have an assault rifle under their trenchcoat.
these are just a few of your "elaborations". should i continue? i'm not making this shit up. if you think you didn't say it, you are sorely mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 6:30 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 7:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 164 of 301 (398208)
04-29-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 6:32 PM


Re: Excuse me?
i'm asking about accidental death numbers because you keep railing about the accidental deaths that guns cause that knives or what have you would not. you keep proclaiming all these deaths, so show them to us. schraf's post didn't include numbers on accidental deaths, but rather gun use in domestic violence and homicide where women were victimized.
i've been asking you throughout this thread and in the last one to produce some kind of numbers. any at all. when wing said something about the 32 at vt you went off on him that more than 32 people were killed accidentally each year. but did you give a real number? no.
you're actively avoiding the issue. stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 6:32 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 7:36 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 171 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 8:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 165 of 301 (398209)
04-29-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jon
04-29-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Got me? Got who? :-S
Can you substantiate that claim with even a shred of evidence?
Seeing as you completely discounted any and all evidence which doesn't support your claim, then by your standards - no.
However, if you look at the evidence provide above, you will see that people are more likely to be shot by their handgun than they are by someone else's handgun.
Additionally, there was another post about how the presence of guns in a home is an incentive to robbery rather than a deterant.
But, of course, this disagrees with you, so it too must be false.
That is one of the most ignorant statements I've read on the entire thread
Grow up. Your racist rants are getting you no where. The fact is that people who have guns (black or white, rich or poor) are more likely to be the victims of gun violence than those who do not have guns.
Just because someone is black or poor does not automatically make them the prep or vic of gun violence - despite your protestations to the opposite.
Owning a steak knife...
Again with the list of silly examples. Thank you, Jon. We know, you can list nouns. You are particular adept at listing nouns which are not produced with the intent of killing people. Congratulations.
Here's one you missed - "Owning brocolli makes you more likely to something something brocolli."
But we aren't discussing brocolli restrictions. Cho didn't kill 32 people with a cabbage. He used a gun. He used a gun to do exactly what the gun was designed to do.
Please take your noun lists to a different thread.
Do you know how those people get their guns?
Asked and answered. But, in case you have some sort of degenerative mind disease, I'll answer again.
Yes, currently while guns are legal it is VERY EASY to obtain a gun. It is illegal for person X to buy a gun, but they can pay person Y to buy it for them. Piece of cake.
But if we got serious about gun control, person Y could not easily obtain the gun to give to illegal person X, therefore it would not be as easy for person X to get the gun.
This isnt a very hard concept. I shouldn't have to draw a picture.
as for your homework assignment for me... please
1) Statistics show no sign of [legal] guns and crime being related; why do you still think it's the guns' fault?
What statistics?
2) Statistics DO show relation between oppressed minorities and murder”these statistics don't worry with what tool was used for the murder, if any”; why do you continue to deny that social factors play a major role?
Strawman. The issue is not whether or not these people kill each other, its whether or not they kill more with an 9mm automatic than they would with a crowbar.
How do you not understand that? We've been over and over it again and again.
3) People A have been killing off people B since the time there were people... whether you think that was 100 kya, 6 kya, or 2 mya. Haven't you overlooked the fact that people still kill people with or without guns? Will you tell me why this doesn't ride negatively on your argument?
Wow, you REALLY don't get this do you? I'm astonished, but I'll try again, and this time I will do it slow. Let's see if you can follow along.
Billy hates Bobby.
Billy wants to kill Bobby.
If Billy has a rock, Bobby can run away.
If Billy has a gun, Bobby is dead.
If Billy has an automatic 9mm, Bobby is dead, and so is Sally, and Sarah, and Beth, and Margret, and Timmy, and...
Billy should not have an automatic 9mm.
4) The people who want to commit crimes, and want to use guns to commit those crimes, will get the guns whether laws are put in place to prevent them from doing so or not
And yet again, it is significantly harder for you to obtain a hand grenade than it is for you to obtain a 9mm. Likewise, a criminal prevented from owning either, will have a much harder time obtaining a hand grenade than they would a 9mm.
Therefore, hand grenade controls are WORKING. There's no reason to believe that similiar controls on automatic pistols will not work.
There, now I've answered your ridiculous demands, fought off your racist rants, addressed you strawmen, and noted your complete disregard for other people's listed statistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 4:31 PM Jon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024