Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #33541
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    What's there to address? Other than homemade guns, all guns made at a factory were legal guns. Until someone broke the law and changed that.
    The thing you're afraid of is the thing you want widely distributed so you can protect yourself from the thing you're afraid of. It's not fucking difficult.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  2. #33542
    Get tired of the argument(s):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY



    A study by the National Academy of Sciences (2004) reviewed over 200 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 "gun control" measures. Researchers were unable to find empirical evidence that restrictive gun laws and regulations reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.

    Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
    "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth." - Aristotle

  3. #33543
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Yeah, I don't tend to group up the criminal uses of firearms with the law-abiding majority of gun owners.

    To me, seeing that accidental deaths are going down while criminal deaths are going up just means that while legal gun ownership is going down, criminal gun ownership is going up.

    I think the accidental death rate is a much better indicator of average overall responsibility for the law-abiding majority than trying to include the criminal fringe.
    sure, you can come to that conclusion if it fits your idea of responsibility

    i think the accidental firearm injury rate would be a much better indicator of average overall responsibility

    i think the accidental discharge and insurance claims would be a much better indicator of average overall responsibility

    i think the number of guns not properly stored and/or stolen would be a better indicator of average overall responsibility

    but i don´t have the time nor the slightest clue where to find these

    to say only accidental (whoever can tell it was one) deaths is the best number to determine overall responsibility is a bit meh
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  4. #33544
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    responsibility is a bit meh
    You forgot, a bit meh, because most of the people who go batshit crazy with their guns obtained them legally.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  5. #33545
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Sure you do. Your argument is that Tinykong's statement is invalid.

    You've spent 10 pages arguing that point, so I'd sure as hell say that it's your argument.
    No. For the hundredth time. I'm not arguing that his statement is invalid. I'm arguing that he hasn't met the burden of proof. I've stated several times that I'm unsure whether the statement is true or false.

    You can't just say "the vast majority of gun owners are responsible" without providing actual evidence.

    If someone says "X is equal to Y," and I ask "Do you have proof for that?" I'm not saying X doesn't equal Y, I'm just asking for proof that it does.
    Eat yo vegetables

  6. #33546
    You're asking someone to prove something when they just deny proof whenever it's presented. Just letting you know.

  7. #33547
    Deleted
    No because people can kill each other with teeth and rocks if they want to so I doubt it would have much effect on crime.

  8. #33548
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    No. For the hundredth time. I'm not arguing that his statement is invalid. I'm arguing that he hasn't met the burden of proof. I've stated several times that I'm unsure whether the statement is true or false.

    You can't just say "the vast majority of gun owners are responsible" without providing actual evidence.

    If someone says "X is equal to Y," and I ask "Do you have proof for that?" I'm not saying X doesn't equal Y, I'm just asking for proof that it does.
    Well the evidence is there for most folks to see. But accepting it is not something you want to. Even if you will not accept it, you also can not prove the great majority are not responsible. So the millions of gun owners will continue to use them with a very low rate of any of them being used in a crime or accidents, or by any other irresponsible ways.

    And the government by the people for the people will continue on with the right to keep and bear arms. And it is worthy to repeat, any registration needs to be done in a way which will be acceptable by the mass majority of gun owners or you will end up nationally like what happened in Conn. Only instead of talking about tens of thousands not registering their guns, we will be talking about tens of millions. Then you would say for sure, most gun owners are not responsible.

  9. #33549
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Well the evidence is there for most folks to see. But accepting it is not something you want to. Even if you will not accept it, you also can not prove the great majority are not responsible. So the millions of gun owners will continue to use them with a very low rate of any of them being used in a crime or accidents, or by any other irresponsible ways.
    Sorry, thats not how things work.

    I cant just say the loch ness monster is real, and you must prove me otherwise. Its up to me to show evidence that he is real.

  10. #33550
    Quote Originally Posted by usiris View Post
    Sorry, thats not how things work.

    I cant just say the loch ness monster is real, and you must prove me otherwise. Its up to me to show evidence that he is real.
    Number of gun owners/number of gun related accidents would be your evidence.

  11. #33551
    You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.

  12. #33552
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.
    You're right, if I dropped my rifle on my toe, broke it and had to go to the hospital it would be classified as a gun related accident.

  13. #33553
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolus View Post
    Get tired of the argument(s):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY



    A study by the National Academy of Sciences (2004) reviewed over 200 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 "gun control" measures. Researchers were unable to find empirical evidence that restrictive gun laws and regulations reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.

    Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
    Will be ignored.

  14. #33554
    Quote Originally Posted by TITAN308 View Post
    Will be ignored.
    Yeah tell me what US federal "restrictive laws" they analyzed. I can think of one.

    Because this is what they said:

    Little is known about the potential effectiveness of a market-based approach to reducing criminal access to firearms.
    Because they can't tell the future.

    Oh my, such a groundbreaking link.
    Last edited by Rukentuts; 2014-06-27 at 02:10 PM.

  15. #33555
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by usiris View Post
    Sorry, thats not how things work.

    I cant just say the loch ness monster is real, and you must prove me otherwise. Its up to me to show evidence that he is real.
    Hehe. Not a good comparison. Trying to relate something which may not even exist to data which does exists to show the number of gun owners , compared to the number of irresponsible actions speaks for itself. The law assumes a car owner is responsible until they prove they are not with a accident or a speeding, operational violation. Same is true for gun owners. If these were not true, then no citizen would get a license. :P

  16. #33556
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Yeah tell me what US federal "restrictive laws" they analyzed. I can think of one.

    Because this is what they said:

    Because they can't tell the future.

    Oh my, such a groundbreaking link.
    So in this thread we have you complaining that pro-gun nuts dismiss dozens of studies and that this indicates denialism, and here you are, dismissing a review of hundreds of studies.


  17. #33557
    Quote Originally Posted by vetinari View Post
    So in this thread we have you complaining that pro-gun nuts dismiss dozens of studies and that this indicates denialism, and here you are, dismissing a review of hundreds of studies.

    Yeah, I'm dismissing it when I quoted them that they admitted they don't know future consequences of non-existing actions in this country.

  18. #33558
    Quote Originally Posted by vetinari View Post
    So in this thread we have you complaining that pro-gun nuts dismiss dozens of studies and that this indicates denialism, and here you are, dismissing a review of hundreds of studies.

    He dismissed it on its merits and limitations. He didn't hand wave it away, which is usually what he complains about in other posters.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  19. #33559
    You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.
    Actually, you can.

    But I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  20. #33560
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Actually, you can.
    Explain to me how you can draw a scientific conclusion off of one variable (guns) off raw data which is the sum of a plethora of many uncontrolled variables.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •