Guns

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Page not found | RAINNRead the part about the rapes, and unreported rapes to cancel out your idea that sexual assault is some kind of myth. While you're at it, maybe you can give us an idea of the kind of safe haven you grew up in, so we all know where to live when we retire? No where I've been to, except for maybe this college town that I've resided in the past few months in the interest of higher education, would allow someone with your naive perspectives to survive.EDITED IN:Oh, and just to be fair, I'll be more than happy to give a rundown of the places I've lived in, albiet most of which are in the same general are. I'll probably be able to get some figures from there, along with a few of my own anecdotes. Buddy, you said so yourself that a hangun is dangerous in anybody's hands. If a woman keeps a handgun in her purse, she can use it as a weapon much more easily than mace or a knife. You can stop mace with your palm, and even a knife if you're desperate enough.Also, I'm quite aware that the gun could be turned on the victim. This is true of any weapon. That's why I feel we should, as a society, make a point to train the first weapon. But that won't happen because people also think that such a program would provoke more violence. Thus, we might as well give the weak a gun as to have some way of protecting themselves.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Had to keep things fair.

---

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.

Hah, you've missed a lot more than that, and I'm left to guess it's because you had no legit arguement against those points. I call you out on this one because I answered your leading question and I'm still in the game. Your upcoming response to this is just weak. Oh, and regarding my alledged paranoid, I'll say it AGAIN:I'm not suggesting an overnight apocalyspe; I'm suggesting a legitimate rise in break-ins and muggings if we ban firearms as you seem to be suggesting. Good. Then you acknowledge that the human being holding the gun should be held accountable for their actions, and not the firearm itself. If we agree on that much, then clearly banning aren't the answer--we need to do some people work instead. Thanks for the history lesson; it doesn't acknolwedge the question in any way. It's all speculation what would happen if we took firearms away from home owners, isn't it? Unless you've seen proof that it would eliminate violence in this country? OH WAIT, that's not what you said. Tell me then, what WOULD we gain from bans? It's a pretty good example of human evils doing LOTS of damage without guns. I'd say it's a legitimate point regarding people killing lots of people sans firearms. Sure, guns make it easier, but insane people sure didn't have trouble finding ways to get by without them. You continue dishonesty in debate by continueing to misquote my use of the number 32 as THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT FATALITIES IN THE VT SHOOTING as the number of accidental shootings. I already covered that here, way back in post 35: You have continued still to be dishonest in this debate, what is this, 100 posts later? Leave that poor strawman alone! Here is what you said, emphasis added: As we agree, I can't prove a negative, per YOUR asking me to. Then you said I was making stuff up. We can't prove a negative, so you can't say if I'm making stuff up, and I'm not, even though you seem to think so here: No, I won't give you a break because apparently anybody who gets hurt in these circumstances that counter your arguement just doesn't exist to you; if that's not living in denial I don't know what is!My arguement does not hinge in this premise, my fine-spelling friend. Henge refers to a Neolithic monument at the British Isles. Check Dictionary.com if you don't believe me.We've been over your strawman attack on me before, and here's how it went: This is twice now in one post you repeated a bogus attack on two points that I didn't make. I made points to clarify my statements, and you ignored them both. I can only conclude that you a)have a terrible memory or b)are ignoring my points on purpose because you can't hold your ground in this debate honestly. But I just gave a reason, so that statement is false. And you just attacked anyone who might have a reason to keep their handguns other than slaughtering human beings on their rationality and sexuality. That's a blatant ad hominem:attack on the man. I think there's a forum rule against that, isn't there? I can't believe this; this is just plain prejudiced and bigoted. You just highlighted a stereotype of a certain type of caucasion and hyperbolized their gun possesion.

​

Even though what you said is more politically correct for some bogus reason, your statement is no different than saying, and I AM ONLY USING THIS EQUALLY BIGOTED STATEMENT AS AN EXAMPLE, "You really want a bunch of doped up, halfwit niggers to get big guns so they can shoot up the streets?!".

​

That example is considered less politically correct, but it's an exact mirror to what you just said. I can only conclude that you are a bigot, and have those reasons to deny a certain group of people (that you call 'redneck') access to guns because according to you they are ALL retarded and liquored up.There's gotta be a rule on here against hate speech like this. With the exception of 'no handguns', I agree with this completely. WHERE did I say I'm 'pro gattling guns'?! I don't see a need for uzis. If all you want to do is only leave us with weapons practical for home defense, self defense, and hunting, then we've got no arguement left except for the handgun debate. Maybe we both misinterpreted eachother?That said, I would like an apology for the whole redneck thing, as one side of my family has been branded that before, and all of them have well-paid jobs and legitimate vocational training. Heck, counting me we'll have 5 or 6 with a college education. So please apologize for calling us 'liquored up retards', because for the record, I don't drink.

---

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.

So let's work on that, but let's not go banning things. Background checks might be more effective if ATF got the funding they need to do their job.

See, now you're debating like a rational human being. There were points where none of us were. That said, though, I replied to you in post 147, and while there were irritable parts because some statements I replied to seemed to me like an indirect attack on me, as well as my family, it comes to a very similar conclusion to what you just gave at the end of the post. I would appriciate a reply, to the very last part at least.I think I agree with you for the most part, the only exception being the handgun ban (if that is, in fact, what you're suggesting)... which seems like we might have to agree to disagree.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : Had to make clear the things I didn't know for sure

---

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.

Did they put the wrong end of the barrel to their occipital before pulling the trigger?Oh, and in the 'Humor III' forum, there's a 300 trailer that I think you might have missed. If God has an imagination beyond our reality, then it goes something like what's in that Youtube clip.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : I just realized that my avatar is the face of evil until I find something else worth replying to.

---

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.

It'd be rather difficult to tally all of the people with guns who also have integrity, even if we could reach an agreement on the definition. 'It's common sense' is, albiet, a weak excuse.But let's look at it rhetorically: Those with integrity are, by definition, going to obey the law? (I know this isn't the case 100% of the time in every respect, but by the definition of integrity this is the general concensus.) That means that most of them won't have guns if a ban is placed.A ban doesn't, by its definition and implications, 'ensure' that the 'bad guys' stay armed. But, unless the bad guys have 'integrity' in all respects (this concept contradicts itself, doesn't it?) then they'll be more than happy to keep Jolly Mr. 9mm around for whatever purpose. The knowledge that 99% of American homes would have no firearms as a result of a ban would motivate some criminals who might've been deterred by this (not saying ALL criminals are held back by this) to be more aggressive, as well.Is it hard evidence? No. But unless you'll argue that all bad guys have a)integrity or b)NO fear of guns in american households, you can't say they'll lose the guns.Unless you're saying the majority of people with integrity will keep their guns despite a ban (which would be illegal), then you can't deny that there's a good lot of people who would be defenseless.I know that you're not advocating a ban, and I actually agree with most of your ideas.HOWEVER, while your stats have been relevant (albiet a little vague here and there, but that's not your fault) this next part requires addressing: I beg to differ; conservatives where I'm from see the world as something to divide and conquer. But seriously, if you're telling me that there's nothing to fear from this world, and nothing to protect oneself from, come on. But I know you're much smarter than that, so I guess our only beef on that lies in what % of the world do we keep our guard up to? I'd put it around 40% or 85%, depending on which of two cities I find myself in.

---

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.

While it doesn't give any graphs, it certainly brings up a couple of interesting counterpoints to some of your data.Gun Control's Twisted OutcomeI know, I have a problem with the unsupported claims at the beginning too. I'm not a big Dan Rather fan. However, the part about how the US counts homocides vs. how our Brit buddies do it was an interesting point that's worth considering.

---

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.

Depends on where you live; I guarantee you there's more people with guns in some places than others. The further into crime-heaven you get in my old city, the more people have their guns, and the more people make a point to keep them cleaned and ready. But hey, there might be a low chance in some areas. But if you put a ban on firearms across the nation, I guarantee you the chance of a house with a gun inside will go waaay down. You're forgetting something--the US isn't the only place that manufactures guns, and criminals traffic firearms from other countries in even now. I don't have a stat on this, but I'm sure some of the bigger gangs have their connections with these middle men. This would not be beyond the power of big crime syndicates, and I'm sure they'd be happy to deal to small-timers for enough money. First of all, that just proves my point that, whether you're conservative or not, you don't have to be paranoid to feel the need to protect yourself from your environment.No, I don't carry a gun. In California, it's illegal to purchase and own a hangun if you're under the age of 21. I'm not even 20, and even then it's EXTREMLY difficult to get a concealed weapons permit. I've definitely slacked on training the first weapon since this wrestling season concluded, but with school I've had a darn good reason. Nevertheless, I still feel that's the most important part of defending yourself (and punching out annoying, belligerent roommates when they break into your room to steal, ironically, your boxing gloves). Fact is, as a society we don't do that enough, and most of the new people I meet training in Jiu-jitsu etc. thanks to the boom of UFC are strong enough to hold their own anyway. Lots of people think teaching kids self defense as a society would promote violence, so that doesn't happen. Well, might as well allow them to defend themselves somehow.

---

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.

That's clearly a psychological/disciplinary issue we're confronting, since the gun didn't jump off the shelf, load itself, and then shoot somebody's foot off. Taking away guns from these people just means they'd probably stab their hands with scissors instead. Big money says they're a lot more likely to break into your house when they know you're gone if the shotgun's their target. Okay, you know what? I don't see any right now. You win on the evidence, if that's what you're so hellbent on reading. But you know what? There's a better solution than banning guns to the problem that these statistics bring to light--psychological and sociological ones, to be specific.The bottom line is, guns don't kill people, they just make it easier. Who pulls the trigger? The human being, whether they're a deranged serial killer, a housewife that snaps one day, or a four year old that found his dad's loaded gun does the killing. Let's do more about these issues. What exactly do I propose we do? I don't know, I haven't gotten my masters in Criminal Psychology yet... how about I get back to you in four years?

---

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.

I'd have to agree. But it still happens; the border patrol doesn't catch everything smuggled from Mexico, just to name one example. I'm almost certain I read something once that said the US was the leader by a good number. Still, they're out there. And military weapons do get into the hands of criminals all the time. Ever heard of a hand grenade going off in LA? Happens, and I'll be happy to dig for a news archive later today if you'd like....not sure I get the cell phone part. Do you mean the 'anti-theft' commercial? The camera phone may get somebody convicted, but it isn't that great a weapon. You're much better off wearing a heavy boot, carrying a swiss army knife, or, against a bladed weapon, using your belt or your shoe.Edited by One_Charred_Wing, : cell phone

---

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.

nice. I wish you would stop using the term 'pro-gunner' as if the difference in your opinion and mine is any greater than how strict the laws ought to be on handguns.Come to think of it, I'm not sure why we're arguing by this point. Nice. But what about the other 20%? Do we tell everyone else to stop making guns per our laws, too?

---

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.

YES! EXACTLY! No, I see where you're coming from... but how are we supposed to know who's this stupid? Background checks could be improved, by giving the ATF some legitimate funds for starters, and that'd take huge chunk out of this problem. But I fail to see what your proposal is short of banning guns as to ensure that this DOES NOT HAPPEN as you seem to be desiring?Is this a mental block? I know you don't want to ban guns, but you don't want to idiot to blow his head off, or worse yet hurt someone else. Me too; I just don't really see what you're proposing. Do we agree that we need to put funding in the right places, improve background checking, and get the APS (American Psychology... society, I think?) organized to get these crazies some help? If yes, then we're in agreement! I have experience of events and I know people who have the same. Is it objective evidence? No, it's anecdotal, and even if I could find the articles online it's still only one instance. But are you saying that a criminal is more likely to break in while someone's home than when they're away? If you can show me a statistic that says just that, then criminal psyche is going to be quite interesting. How about experience and rhetoric? Okay, Descartes, am I to assume my whole life hasn't happened? To deny what I've seen would be living in denial, even though I don't think we really disagree on much. I can't bring myself to think that I'm safer without a gun in my house when my neighborhood goes to shit.YES! EXACTLY! It isn't, it's just that I don't think it should be so difficult that you can't get one unless you have a college education, a perfect parking record, and are at least 42 years of age.I'm not asking you to fix this problem in a paragraph, but to what degree to you think gun restrictions should be intesnified, and why? I have a feeling I'll agree with 95% of what you'll say.

---

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.

So we'll make them illegal, but still manufacture domestic guns for... what?That doesn't make sense. Either way, that's more guns that criminals could get their paws on.