|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Then we can agree that carrying a handgun around in your day to day life is a bit excessive and unnecessary. For everybody? All 375 million Americans? No, I can't agree that's the case. I can agree that it's the case for you and for me, and the result of that is that you and I choose not to carry guns. But jeez, Oni, we're not everybody. There actually are a lot of people for whom carrying a handgun in their day to day life is not in any way excessive, but a completely rational protection against their risk of being attacked. And I don't understand the basis by which you'd say "well, I've never needed a gun, so why do you?"
I don't however believe that people currently using handguns to defend themselves ar making the wrong decision because they ARE acting in accordance to the law (assuming that they are actually following the rules of gun ownership). Right, but you'd like to change the law so that if they did carry a gun, they would be making the wrong decision. Right?
Close though... NYC Well, ok. Let's look at "everybody gets along" in New York City:
quote: from http://en.wikipedia.org/...nited_States_cities_by_crime_rate I dunno, that doesn't look like "getting along." I live a block north of the District of Columbia, which has the highest murder rate in the nation and also it's completely illegal to own or carry a handgun there. Again, none of that is prove that we all need guns all the time, but your assertion that they "get along" where you live because people don't have guns doesn't seem to be the case. It doesn't work like that where I live, either.
Okay then, you're not crazy at all. Look, what are you talking about? The board was hacked because of something I said. Percy's said so in multiple different threads about the Great Hack, and he repeated it in a private message to me, which I hope he won't mind me quoting from:
quote: It's not my imagination, Oni, it actually happened. Everybody involved - including the hackers! - seem to agree that it happened because they were pissed off at me. I'm not crazy, it's just objective reality that there's something different about me from the rest of you that causes people to react to my completely uncontentious remarks by just completely losing their shit.
Listen, I felt your counter to me saying there are alternative means of self-defense by bringing up the paraplegic was silly and I countered it with a silly video. You could have said that, I guess, but then it begs the question - why do you think it's silly for paraplegics to want to defend themselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I said I didn't think of a .22 when I thought of hunting rounds. No, you said that you didn't think of it as a hunting round. Read your own words, which you seem to have quoted without reading. You didn't say that when you thought of "hunting rounds", you thought of some other round besides the .22. That would be fine. You said that you didn't think of the .22 as a hunting round. Verbatim, that's what you said:
quote: I mean I trust we can agree these are your words, because you've said them twice, now. That's an outright denial that you consider the .22 LR a round for hunting. Not that it's not the first round you think of, but that you don't think it's for hunting.
And I only said that because you said most people think .22 when they think of a hunting round. Well, they may. Certainly your single example of not thinking of it as a hunting round doesn't contradict that in any way. Who gives a shit what you think? You've stipulated twice that you don't know anything about guns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Folks ignored the previous article I posted here (Message 747), so here's another one with some text to introduce it this time:
To the eyeball, it looks like a more heavily armed population goes hand-in-hand with less murder, as an average. The statistics bear that out: the correlation coefficient is negative, -0.23, and it is statistically significant. http://www.americanthinker.com/...g_to_the_latest_media.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Seems like a good piece of evidence to start looking into the effects of strict gun laws. I admit, every country has it's own unique issues to deal with, but a positive outlook rather than negative nit-picking I feel would work to our advantage in the long run. Well first off, your contention was that people would not make their own handguns if they were illegal. But whatever, that's no biggie. To your point here, I want to be allowed to have guns. Showing me some complicated statistics from other countries really doesn't have any affect on that. I'd rather see, straight forward, what the effects of gun control would do here in the US, and what the effects would be without it. I understand that's not really possible right now, but a bunch of chewed up stats from unrelated cultures is fairly meanignless to me personally.
Again, just giving alternatives for self-defesne that doesn't involve all of us strapped with a Glock yelling Yippy Ki Yay motherfuckers at the first sign of danger. Um, okay, well... thanks but no thanks. Handguns are by far the best self-defense available. My preference lies with them.
Where are you living that this is happen to a degree that the people there are better off armed? Being against making some guns illegal doesn't necessitate advocating the arming of people. Its up to the individual whether or not he's better of armed, I just don't want you people enacting legislation that prevents him from being able to if he wants to.
Wait, you misunderstand. They're not 'dangerous' in the hands of expert shooters. They're dangerous when stolen and used by idiots out to harm people. I was suggesting eliminating those peoples source of acquiring guns. Well I think your suggestion sucks. It doesn't work and its only unhelpful.
And, it would be fine to do so since those weapons are not of any real necessity to anyone aside from a hobby. These things aren't decided by "necessity".
And when the experts tell you that 'no overlap' is impossible, then what? Have they though?
And when they tell you that you can't classify guns by how they're gonna be used, then what? Have they though? You haven't asked them yet. I'm no expert, but I can tell you that both of those things are true.
And note, that I changed by opinion to simply making the weapons illegal like in the UK. But that doesn't really do anything except increase crime. We even saw with the data from Australia that the amount of gun deaths there didn't drop any faster than the trend the rest of the world was seeing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think Onifre is making a probabilistic argument. It's the same as the argument for childhood vaccinations, where some children suffer adverse effects from the vaccination itself, but overall childhood mortality drops. I agree, but the problem is that outcomes aren't individually probabilistic. You don't get "50%" mugged or "24.3/100,000" murdered. You get either 0% murdered or 100% murdered. Likewise, you can't be 50% armed with a handgun.
Gun deaths will be greatly reduced if people do not have guns for personal defense. And yet some people won't be able to defend themselves if they're not allowed to have guns for personal defense, which means some people will be murdered who could have saved their own lives. I think it's better to allow people to make their own choices, because I can't say that preventing someone from defending themselves saves even a single life. Can you? Supposed in this case we had legally prevented the homeowner from killing the intruder by preventing him from owning a firearm. Whose life would the deaths of him, his partner, and their 2-year-old daughter have saved? The intruders? Is there a social interest in ensuring that people can invade each other's homes in safety by shifting the burden of that criminality to innocents? I don't see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Crash writes: For everybody? All 375 million Americans? "375 million Americans?" "375"? You probably got that made-up statistic from the same place as your imaginary Norwegian statistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've only ever heard the term "varmint" used to refer to vermin, as per its dictionary definition:
quote: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/varmint but in light of Theodoric's information I'll stipulate that where I have said "varmint round", what I meant was "vermin round" as per the dictionary definition of "varmint" and the Wikipedia entry on "Varmint Hunting":
quote: as well as Theodoric's own "Varmint Rifle" article:
quote: Left to right .22 LR, .22-250 and .25-06 So, .22 LR is a "varmint" round. Thanks, Theodoric!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"375 million Americans?" "375"? You're right, it's 315 million (plus change.) Just looked it up on Census.gov. Funny, I was pretty sure about that one. Still, can you explain how it detracts from my point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Crash writes: You're right, it's 315 million (plus change.) Just looked it up on Census.gov. Funny, I was pretty sure about that one. Still, can you explain how it detracts from my point? You glossed over the fact that you were also wrong about violent crime statistics in Europe (particularly Norway).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Folks ignored the previous article I posted here (Message 747), so here's another one with some text to introduce it this time: FWIW, I ignore most bare links regardless. I'm here to discuss with the members here. I go to other sites to get link suggestions.
quote: Yup. According to this blog, over 400 kids have been shot in Chicago over the last year. Chicago, where it was basically illegal to even just have a gun. Gun control just doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You glossed over the fact that you were also wrong about violent crime statistics in Europe I was not, in fact, wrong about violent crime statistics in Europe - they're higher than in the US, as I proved with a source. You ignored the source. And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions, whenever you're ready.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Crash writes: I was not, in fact, wrong about violent crime statistics in Europe - they're higher than in the US, as I proved with a source. You ignored the source. And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions, whenever you're ready. Direct me to your supposed post that shows Norway has a higher violent crime rate than the USA. Whenever you're ready.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22478 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
crashfrog writes: I agree, but the problem is that outcomes aren't individually probabilistic. You don't get "50%" mugged or "24.3/100,000" murdered. You get either 0% murdered or 100% murdered. Likewise, you can't be 50% armed with a handgun. You have to look at things statistically, not individually. Again, it's the same as the vaccination argument. Each individual child's parents may feel it is safer refusing the vaccination because it prevents exposure to the risks of the vaccination itself. But they're wrong. If too many parents feel this way then we get epidemics and greatly increased childhood mortality. This isn't hypothetical, we're already seeing increased measles outbreaks and associated increased mortality. With guns, each individual may feel safer when armed for personal defense, but they're wrong. Gun owners are more likely to be gun victims than non-owners. We already know that people are really bad about assessing risk, for example, many believing it is far more likely to be attacked by a shark than struck by lightning (you're 30 times more likely to be struck by lightning). We shouldn't let the common misconception that gun ownership increases safety guide our actions. The fact is that the more guns the more gun deaths, and only by reducing gun ownership will we reduce gun deaths. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
You really do not kn ow anything about guns do you.
Look at the picture. Do you see the .22LR? It is a straigth walled case with minimal powder. Do you see the .22-250? It is a .22 caliber round also. The difference is it is a large case necked down to a .22 caliber bullet. Much different than a .22LR.
So, .22 LR is a "varmint" round. Thanks, Theodoric! Ummm, no. It doesnt say that anywhere. Ok so let me make this simple. Caliber does not have a direct correlation with power. A .17 HMR is a much more pwerful round than a .22LR.
quote: .17 HMR - Wikipedia Yes there are .22 caliber and smaller varmint rounds. .22LR is not one of them. What I posted and what you posted clearly say that. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
Half-measure gun control does not appear to work, no.
State-limited gun control is meaningless when state lines can be crossed on a whim. Limiting only specific types of guns is meaningless when other guns can just as easily be used. Nationwide gun bans, however, as exist in most of Europe and the UK, do seem to work. And, of course, a raw incident count number is rather meaningless. You need per-capita numbers to make comparisons. Simply saying "Look, this happened x times" is nothing more than an emotional appeal and doesn't do much for the debate.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024