Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Well there is a study that came out in September last year from the American journal of medicine if I remember correctly that proved a high number of guns per capita is related to a high number of gun related deaths and as such does not make a country "safer". Haven't read the study myself mind you so keep this in mind.
Total ban in an ideal world would be safer for the people. I'm afraid the situation in the US has gotten to a point where that's not a viable option unfortunately.
If the aim is "a safer county" the "solution" is a scaling down system in my opinion. Starting with regulations and so on. A long process.
It's a mess alright but like the native american used to say: the best day to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best day is today

Ah, exactly. That's what I'm thinking. The goal should be a complete ban but the process could perhaps begin with assault weapons.

[rhandric]

I'm still waiting on your rational argument other than why you need to cling to guns to sate your irrational fear.

You don't have one.

Personally? If I were to own a gun (eventually want to, but currently don't), it'd be (mostly) for range shooting. Do I feel a need for one for self defense? No. Would I use it in self defense, if needed? Absolutely.

So let's hear why you a) want to ban guns and b) yet own some number of them.

[Rukentuts]

So let's hear why you a) want to ban guns

I want gun control to reduce gun violence to the level of other developed nations and lower the murder rate.

[Tinykong]

Another ad hominem, address the argument or move on.

Until you stop being a hypocrite, there is nothing to respond to.

- - - Updated - - -

Eeeh no. Not really. IN FACT I never talked about firearm violence. That would have been you.
According to me that would be yet another GUN RELATED DEATH.
Eventually you'll get the point.

So, what you're saying is that firearm violence only includes criminal acts carried out with a firearm?

[Rukentuts]

Until you stop being a hypocrite, there is nothing to respond to.

Delicious ad hominems continue, in lieu of rationality.

I'll just assume at this point you don't have one, until you can prove otherwise.

[Deleted]

You want me to have a rational argument with someone who actively engages in the very thing he is crying about others doing? lol

Such a low shot. God how embarassing.

[Rukentuts]

Such a low shot. God how embarassing.

He can't even address the argument.

[TZucchini]

none of those features, except MAYBE the detachable magazines, increase performance in combat.

Then why does every military unit in the world use them?

[Tinykong]

Delicious ad hominems continue, in lieu of rationality.

I'll just assume at this point you don't have one, until you can prove otherwise.

Calling you a hypocrite is not a personal attack, contrary to your attempts at infraction baiting.

According to you, there is no rational reason to own firearms and yet, you own them and call others irrational for owning them. That's hypocrisy.

[Rukentuts]

According to you, there is no rational reason to own firearms and yet, you own them and call others irrational for owning them. That's hypocrisy.

And yet I've ever thoroughly demonstrated why it's irrational.

You just keep on screaming "hypocrite" because you have no counterargument. You must just be incapable of generating one.

[Tinykong]

He can't even address the argument.

Me:Why do you own firearms?
Rukentuts: Because reasons.

Rukentuts: Why do you own firearms?
Me: Because reasons.
Rukentuts: lol irrational fears.

That sums it up nicely, don't you think?

[Rukentuts]

Rukentuts: Why do you own firearms?
Me: Because reasons.
Rukentuts: lol irrational fears.

You missed the part where I disproved all your reasons. Wouldn't be the first time.

I'm just curious what mental hoops you need to jump through to think an attack on a source somehow validates your position.

[Tinykong]

You missed the part where I disproved all your reasons. Wouldn't be the first time.

I'm just curious what mental hoops you need to jump through to think an attack on a source somehow validates your position.

So, let's assume you've invalidated all my reasons.

Why do you need to own them?

[Rukentuts]

So, let's assume you've invalidated all my reasons.

Okay. Then consider yourself and the gunners' position disproven. That's a wrap.

[Deleted]

Until you stop being a hypocrite, there is nothing to respond to.

- - - Updated - - -



So, what you're saying is that firearm violence only includes criminal acts carried out with a firearm?

I have never in this thread stopped to wonder at what exactly does firearm violence mean, simply because, until you stormed in talking about it, for reasons unknown, it just wasn part of the discussion.
Firearm violence is everything that includes a firearm and a violent act. Violent as in per definition, just so you know what I'm on about, and not as in your "interpretation" of it.
That means treaths, injuries, homicides, suicides. There is a gray area, accidents. That really depends.
That's why it is absolutely unrelated to the focus point which is gun related deaths. Which is instead a well defined group.
And that's also why this thing you've been parroting for how many pages now? makes absolutely no difference and its just a talking point.

[Deleted]

And does that mean that once corruption reaches a certain level, the politicians should change the law and allow firearms? But wait, they're corrupt? Or does the level of corruption only ever decrease and not increase?

--

Considering that you used the term "single shot revolver"...

I'm having a hard time picturing that one.

That's twisting my words. Nope it doesn't mean that. A = B, B = C, =/= A = C, mkay?
If a country already has little corruption, I don't see any reason for having firearms to protect yourself with to supposedly protect yourself from said government in case they turn on you. Which is an argument used by many.

Oh jesus christ I made a mistake. Of course a pistol not a revolver.

[rhandric]

Okay. Then consider yourself and the gunners' position disproven. That's a wrap.

Typical, just reading what he wants

[Zoranon]

Me:Why do you own firearms?
Rukentuts: Because reasons.

Rukentuts: Why do you own firearms?
Me: Because reasons.
Rukentuts: lol irrational fears.

That sums it up nicely, don't you think?

Yep, nice job summing up his hypocrisy.

[TZucchini]

No they haven't. Increased a little, not "quite a bit".

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co...tal_gun_injury

17% increase over the last 10 years.

I said 15 years.

More accurate statement would be: Over the past 10 years, firearm homicide rates have remained stagnant, while non-fatal firearm injury rates have increased quite a bit.

[Rukentuts]

Typical, just reading what he wants

Nice rational argument rebuttal to my position there.

Apparently none of the gunners don't have one.