for the record (re: guns thread)

quote:

---

As I asked before, prove it. If I am in a bar, and get the notion that I want to fight someone, just because I have a gun on hand doesn't mean I am going to pick it up and shoot them to death.

---

No, but NOT having a gun on you reduces the chances of you shooting someone by quite a lot, doesn't it?And HAVING the gun on you increases the chances of you shooting someone compared to not having it, doesn't it?

quote:

---

People only use guns when their intent is MURDER!

---

Oh? I thought that people who have them legally only use them in SELF DEFENSE.But hey, if your argument is that the only reason people use guns is for murder, then we definitely should ban them outright, shouldn't we?I'm sure you didn't mean to say this, so perhaps you might consider thinking through your arguments a bit more before posting.

quote:

---

AND, if what they want to do is KILL, then they will do so however they can. Guns are an easy way to do it, but they are by no means the only.

---

I have addressed this many times between the two threads, jon.It is precisely BECAUSE killing people is so EASY with guns that, when the violence that is inevitably going to happen occurs, more people die.It is quite difficult to beat or stab someone to death. It takes a long time. It takes quite a lot of strength or skill. Someone can run away from a beating or a stabbing in many cases.Let me ask you. Is any of this sounding at all familiar? I repeated it over and over again in the previous thread.

quote:

---

I asked this before too. Provide the thorough documentation, or retract your claim that it exists.

---

Dude, compared to other industrialized nations, the US has relatively unfettered access to guns.Read the first thread. I already did my research and turned it in. Don't blame me if you haven't read it yet.

Jon.Read the OP.Then, tell me who has the comprehension problem.

quote:

---

In other words, just because people own a lot of guns, does not mean they were EASY to get it could just mean that they wanted them really really really really bad. So, do you have any evidence to back your claim up?

---

Gunshows. Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Look, I am starting to think that you are just making us jump through hoops, then pretending that you don't understand why we are leaping through those silly things, to get your jollies or something.Read the OP.Say something substantive about it.

quote:

---

There are thousands of people in the US that could kill you with their bare hands before you could pull a revolver from your purse and shoot them. Our armed forces teach people how to do this all the time.

---

Right. Through years and years of disciplined training.On the other hand, someone with no training at all can buy a gun in a store and aquire the even more deadly ability to kill instantly, from a distance, instantly.The point there, though, is someone with a gun can kill many people in a few seconds, even if the potential victims are running away. Even the best martial artist can't do that. Not even close.This has got to be the eighth or ninth time I've said this over the course of two threads.Why is this so incredibly difficult for pro-gunners to understand?I am truly mystified.

quote:

---

The US ranks 8th and Switzerland ranks 19th murders per capita with a gun.

---

It is clearly not comparing the US with other rich, western industrialized nations with stable governments, so you will get misleading results, which you did.The US has five times the rate of gun murders than the Swiss, and three times the Swiss overall gun deaths.

quote:

---

The Constitution grantees my rights to own and bear arms so that I can protect myself from my government and criminals of any type if it becomes necessary.

---

That's not what the Constitution says for WHY we should have that right.It says: There is nothing in there about "protecting yourself against criminals". And it says that gun ownership should be connected to being part of a well-regulated militia.How many current gun owners are part of a well-regulated militia, do you think? Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The 'anti-gunners' in this thread are NOT trying to ban guns,

---

Correct.

quote:

---

just suggesting a reinforcement of the background checking process in order to acquire one.

---

And much more stringent requirements for how gun owners secure their weapons, requiring training, licensing and registration of all firearms, requiring a paper trail of all guns sold to anyone, anywhere, requiring child safety locks on all guns commonly sold for "personal protection", etc., but basically, yes, that's right.

quote:

---

They're NOT saying that having a gun for home defense is a stupid concept.

---

The statistics report that the legitimate use of a gun in self-defense is very rare, and that having guns in a home greatly increases the chances that someone in that household will be injured or killed by it.Statistically, it is a stupid concept.

quote:

---

as criminals will always have guns, no matter what.

---

Says who?Most criminals in Japan, the UK, and other nations comparable to the US don't have guns.OTOH, given the money that the gun manufacturers make and the lobbying power that the insane people at the NRA have, we are not likely to see that change for the better.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First, let me just thank you for your cool, calm, and non-hostile reply to my arguments. It's very much appreciated when one can debate his/her points without worry of being insulted and/or viciously verbally attacked

---

I hope you weren't referring to my posts, Jon.I've been direct. I've been blunt.I have not, however, engaged in any ad hominem.I repeatedly tried to stop Nuggin from attacking you, if you recall.

quote:

---

Landmines are not a right guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment.

---

Why not?They are "arms", aren't they?

quote:

---

Unless you can show me that landmines and guns are both equally "necessary to the security of a free state," then your argument is sunk.

---

Actually, landmines would be a great deal more useful to repelling a military force than handguns.

quote:

---

Because landmines would be destructive to the U.S. if detonated on an invading force, I believe the same logic applies here as to nukes, that is, they are more detrimental to the security of a free state than they are necessary.

---

But that's the argument about civilian ownership of handguns.Are they "more detrimental to the decurity of a free state than they are neccessary"?All of the statistics I have found indicate that they kill far more people than they keep secure through homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.

quote:

---

The thread is mostly an emotional opportunity for folk to vent their personal misconceptions.

---

So, is the yearly deaths of 30,000 people from guns (which includes homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings merely a misconception?What sort of misconception? What facts are incorrect?Is the fact that the lethal violence rate in the US is so much higher than that of comparative nations a misconception, too?What sort of misconception? What facts are incorrect?

quote:

---

Modulous and I went through this, and I explained that even though the quote said violence, it was MEANT IN THE CONTEXT OF MURDER. Modulous accepted this 'correction' so why the hell can't everyone else?

---

Modulous may believe you but I sure as hell don't.Please do not play games, Jon.I caught you in the error of repeatedly "strawmanning" my position.The OP of this thread documents this.You repeated and repeated and repeated your strawman, which is why I had to correct it at least seven times in the original Guns thread.You never once, in several hundred posts and despite seven seperate, nearly identical corrections, clarified your definition of violence to mean murder only.Now, several hunderd more posts later in another thread, you are trying to pass off some malarkey that you meant "murder" when you were saying "violence". If you had meant "murder", you would have said "murder", wouldn't you? Particularly since I kept correcting you?I may be a lot of things, but gullible ain't one of 'em.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Do you happen to know the population density of anywhere in Vermont compared to, say, Los Angeles?Vermont is mostly mountains and trees, rat.Burlington is the largest city and it has just under 40,000 people in 15 square miles.The next largest city in Vermont has only 17,000.LA has over 4 million people in 500 square miles.According to Wiki, the population densities for the two cities are:Burlington: 3,682.0/sq mi
LA: 8,567/sq miIn fact, the population of the entire state of Vermont is only just over 600,000.That means that the population of the single city of Los Angeles is over six and a half times the size of the population of the whole state of Vermont.Compare apples to apples if you want to make your case.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Then it sounds to me like population density has more to do with violence than guns.

---

It isn't one or the other. It is more complicated than that.And......as I have repeated innumerable times since the first time nearly 600 posts ago...I never said that guns were the cause of violence.