Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Why the assumption that these two are linked? Burglary is a very wide range of crimes. Are the majority home burglaries? Business burglaries? In my experience talking to sheriffs deputies and police officers, the majority of burglaries are businesses when they know no one is there. Also, the vast majority of home burglaries are when no one is there. That is why they burgle, so they can do it with no one at around. If they wanted to deal with people they would rob, or home invade.Are home invasions common in UK, they are in the USA. Now if you want to compare statistics to see if gun ownership is a deterrent, you need to look at things like robbery and home invasion. Do you have those statistics?Your stats on burglary have no bearing on the subject, because it is usually a crime that happens when the victims are not around.Want to try again?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I love when people bring up lameass arguments like this. They think they are making some huge point but the whole point has no bearing on the argument or reality. No one here could ever be in a position to do anything about Hitler, or Stalin or Pol Pot or George Bush. Therefore, the question has no value. It is easy for us to look back in hindsight, but to ask whether someone would have killed Hitler is ludicrous. There are no time machines, this is just an attempt to make some lameass cheap point. No matter how anyone answers has no bearing on this argument or the reality of what Hitler did. Maybe next time bring a real argument to your post.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you even know what paramount means? Paramount - chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent:If you call something paramount you cannot then put a qualifier on it. So is the following paramount or not? It is best to know what words mean before you throw them around.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You make my point so well. Did you read the part that says relevant and non-distracting. First how is Hitler at all relevant to a conversation about gun control? Second, how more distracting can you get than Hitler. See Godwin's Law.Also this is not a hypothetical.Again definition time. Hypothetical - Logic.
a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.Something that is hypothetical is something that is highly conjectural or conditional. It is not something that is completely beyond reality.The reality is no one from here can go back in time and kill Hitler if they wanted to. No one that lived when Hitler was young could have known what was going to happen. This is not possible.Now lets define hypothesis since part of the definition of hypothetical uses the word hypothesis. Hypothesis -a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.Now
Premise -a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical. It is a lameass attempt to make a lameass point. Nothing more, nothing less.Now if you are willing to concede how lameass this is, I will answer.No, I wouldn't. Do you know what the affects on the timeline this would have? Neither do I. Maybe a more competent, radical leader of a rearmed Germany would have emerged? Maybe that leader would have invaded England, put more effort into jet propulsion, developed the atomic bomb? Maybe without Hitler, Joe Stalin would have caused more deaths and chaos then he did?I stand by my point that for the various reasons invoking"would you have killed Hitler" is lameass and adds nothing to this or any debate.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Are you willing to role the dice and maybe cause more deaths or the virtual destruction of the world as we know it? Get off your high horse. You have no idea what other potential harms could have happened. Present a realistic situation.
Oh wait when presented with a realistic situation, like if the persons life or families lives are threatened, they are willing to use deadly force.Again, asking if we would kill one of the worst people of the 20th century brings NOTHING to the debate and does NOTHING to strengthen your point.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You truly refuse to at all consider what Huntard was saying.Using the argument that Barack Obama used a word incorrectly and therefore it is ok for you to use it does not cut it. You are missing the point Huntard and I are trying to make. Words mean things. You should make clear you mean what you say. Hopefully, you and Obama misused the word. For Obama it was a rhetorical device. Maybe you were using it as a rhetorical device also. The context did not make that clear. Huntard and I both did not take it as that. Use correct words and terminology and people will understand what you are trying to say.This may be an informal debate, but no one is allowed to make up their own definitions for words. Personal attacks mean nothing to me. All they show is an inability to discuss the subject rationally. Besides I think your criticism of my previous post was quite off the mark.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

OK you have proved you cannot not debate civilly. So everyone that disagrees with you is the one with the problem? Personal attacks do not improve your argument.Damn.
So many places to go I don't know where to start. You are changing arguments in midstream. This is not about the relevance of Huntards moral values, it is the relevance of Hitler. Ok you keep changing arguments. Do you think Hitler is relevant and non-distracting to this argument or not? Oh and nice personal attack again. Aren't you witty. If you followed my link you would have read this.

quote:

---

Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2009.

---

Oh you posted something untrue? I am so surprised. Not only is my definition not made up, it is the only one so far presented that is within the context(like that word?) of this debate. You see the definitions I used(there were more) were within the context(there's that word again)of the debate.Again your own arguments are destroying your position.The legal definition you gave does not support you. Hmm, I didn't release this was a court of law or any of us are expert witnesses. Didn't you mention context in a previous post? Again this is not business and what you are asking for is not a generalized answer. This definition is applicable only in a business situation. I have used rhetorical questions many times in business in order to make general determinations on general situations. Again, didn't you mention context earlier.Oops forgot one. A good definition, but then again this does not support you. My point is your question is not a correct hypothetical question in a debate using logic. Your own previous definition stated that the question must be relevant and non-distracting. When you could not support that you then found other definitions that are out of context.As of yet nothing you have stated in rebuttal can be construed as showing any silliness or ignorance on my part.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Wow!!I shouldn't even respond, but the difference here is poor editing and misspelling. I would like to keep this debate on a higher level but since this is all you got, I guess I have to live with it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Misrepresenting other peoples posts is not only frowned upon, it is clear out and out lying. You obviously have manipulated what I wrote in order to meet the needs of your argument. Lets look at what I really posted. As you can see I provided a a link to the definitions I used. Hmm, you seemed to think you could eliminate them and promote the lie that I made up the definitions all by my own little ole self. Isn't that sweet of you.Now if you were an honest person you would not post a lie like this and maybe you might even look at what the source is. You know if you see something that is a different color it means it is a link. Do you require that I spell out "SOURCE"? Do you not understand how this forum and its software works?By the way those definitions.Source
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2009.Not made up. Your dishonesty continues to destroy any credibility you would like to have.A formal apology would be appreciated.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

A quote like this has no value if there is no link to the actual study. Not that I am saying this is untrue but there is no way to confirm the figures or the interpretation by the author are accurate. The author of the piece has written a couple pro gun pieces but other than that I have no reason to accept her as an expert.ABE
By the way the piece was written in 2003. Anything more recent?Edited by Theodoric, : final comment

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I own guns. I own 6 guns. I am pro-gun control. I live in "the hills". (to define hills, 37 acres land, nearest town 2000 people, largest big town within 1 1/2 hours 8000 people, nearest city 2 hours away 75,000 people) I think your argument is lame. Gun control in the US is not an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people it is just so we have some sort of "control" over them. I would have no problem registering my guns.We register cars don't we? Hell where I live we even register our dogs. There are many reasons to own a gun. But I see no reason for not requiring registration of at least some forms of guns.Playing city vs. country is just a bs argument. There is plenty of unnecessary gun violence out here in "the hills".There is no right in the US to own, without regulation, any gun you want. There has been almost no attempt in the US to make "gun control" the banning of guns.Lets argue reality, not paranoid fears of the governemnt taking away all guns.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

His comment was about anyone explaining why "he" should have a gun.Then Coyote went off the edge making outlandish claims about gun control.So if you don't mind I made a comment about it. Why don't you understand the context of what Coyote said? He said that city folks and busybodies should not worry their pretty little heads about ANY gun control, because they don't know what it means to live in "the hills". Are you trying to tell me Coyote believes in gun registration? Has RAZD said all guns should be banned?My point, Mr. out of line, was that I live in the country and I am a gun owner and hunter.(yes kind of important in order to understand the CONTEXT of my comment) and I think gun control of some kind is necessary. There is per capita as much gun violence in 'the hills" as there is ion the cities.People that equate gun control with banning guns are disingenuous at best. Are you saying you and Coyote are not equating them?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You notice how no one ever references a source for this BS. Because it isn't true.Find me a source.

quote:

---

What is most troubling about HB 155 is the phony history the "whereas" clauses cite as a pretext for criminalizing the keeping of lists. Supposedly, Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler both used gun registration "to confiscate firearms and render the disarmed population helpless. . . ."

​

Historians whom I consulted scoff at this. According to Dr. Cristoph Strupp of the German Historical Institute in Washington, Hitler actually liberalized Germany's gun laws, except for Jews and other "enemies of the state." But, he added, it would be "basically naive" and "a-historical" to think that owning guns "would have made any difference in their fate."

​

"There was virtually no resistance in Germany not because there weren't guns but because there was no will to resist," explained Dr. Nathan Stolzfus, an associate professor of history at Florida State University. "The clear majority in Germany received Hitler as he presented himself. . . ."

​

Dr. Louis A. Perez, a University of North Carolina professor of history who formerly taught at the University of South Florida, said that upon seizing power Castro actually distributed guns to the Cuban population, reversing course only when street crime became a problem.

---

SourceEdited by Theodoric, : Forgot Source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Wrong!!!From your own link

quote:

---

Semi-automatic and pump-action centrefire rifles were banned following the massacre in Hungerford, Berks, in August 1987.

---

quote:

---

It has also been illegal to own a handgun, even for sporting purposes, following laws introduced after the Dunblane shooting in March 1996

---

That is not ALL guns.

quote:

---

Shotguns are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[6] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.

​

A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition

---

SourceSome firearms are still legal in the UK.
Primarily shotguns and center fire rifles that are either single shot, or bolt action. Also it looks like any rimfire rifle may be legal too.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Which he duid not say and which he has already clarified.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts