Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

I'm taking a page from the gun grabber playbook: I linked a study and made a one liner.

Now I'll just consider you a science denier for criticizing the study.

Actually the study you linked is perfectly valid, well done, and quite interesting.

It just doesn't say "punishment never deters crime."

So, are you going to retract your statement?

[Tinykong]

So, are you going to retract your statement?

As soon as you guys start retracting your fallacious statements about gun control studies, I'll do the same.

Not going to happen.

[TZucchini]

As soon as you guys start retracting your fallacious statements about gun control studies, I'll do the same.

Not going to happen.

Point to a specific statement that I made that requires retraction, and I'll be happy to debate whether or not I should retract it, and if necessary, will retract it. It's not difficult, I did it literally three pages ago.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone in good faith when they're unwilling to admit when wrong.

[Tinykong]

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone in good faith when they're unwilling to admit when wrong.

I don't know whether to laugh or face palm at the irony here.

[Slant]

The concept is the person holding the gun makes the decision what he wants to shoot, barring a accident. Same as if a person decides to hit a ball or another person's head with a baseball bat. Guns happen to be very effective killing tools. But they are still a tool. Misused by some and needs some type of regulation because they are so effective at killing.

Yes, and if you remove the gun, you remove the need to make that decision. So even if he decides to kill someone with a gun, he has none.

[PhaelixWW]

I disagree. It could just as easily be the other way around, considering the attacker is looking at substantial jail time if they pull the trigger, whereas the victim is not. Could that factor into the decision? In some cases, sure.

I disagree. It could just as easily be the other way around, considering the attacker is looking at substantial jail time if they don't eliminate the witness, whereas the victim is not. Could that factor into the decision? In some cases, sure.

If people are using firearms in a threatening manner when a criminal incident hasn't even taken place, then said use is illegal.

If a criminal incident did take place, and a firearm was used defensively, the NCVS would apply.

So which is it?

If a crime is halted in its incipient moments, then technically the crime still occurred (just with "attempted" tacked onto the front), though it is very rarely ever reported or recorded as such. In fact, many DGU cases are probably not even thought of by the "victim" as a criminal incident, since it was prevented before it really happened. So many incidents of DGU were likely never even discussed during the NCVS questionnaire.

Firstly, perhaps you'll notice a lack of 'absolute' wording in that statement. Words like 'all', 'every', 'always', 'only', 'none', 'never', etc.

Uh... "is enough" is a statement of absolute. There's no ambiguity, no limiting agent in the predicate. That's the way it is with linking verbs. If I said "gun control is bad", and you said "that's not true!", and then I said "well, you should have understood that I meant gun control is sometimes bad, duh, I didn't use an absolute", you'd be all over me.

And you didn't even just say "is enough". You said "is more than enough", which is absolutely an absolute.

I don't sit here proofreading my statements. Sometimes I'm going to misspeak, or need to clarify.

Then just admit that you should have used a "sometimes" in there and move on.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and if you remove the gun, you remove the need to make that decision. So even if he decides to kill someone with a gun, he has none.

You honestly think that criminals will only kill people if they can do it with a firearm? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

[Mayhem]

As soon as you guys start retracting your fallacious statements about gun control studies, I'll do the same.

Not going to happen.

boy you really have a hard time with being wrong, considering how much you´re going off when calling someone else out, this is indeed very funny, thanks for the laughs

edit: the "but you first" part is just an icing, very mature

- - - Updated - - -

How does handling it differently change the rate of fire on the rifle? How does it lessen recoil, improve accuracy, or extend magazine capacity? You have yet to even show there being a substantial difference in shooting results compared to not having one. So again, to go from 'okay to own' to 'must be banned,' you're making that decision based on how the rifle looks, not how it functions.

what has magazine capacity to do with this? if you´re able to have better control of the weapon, then that improves accuracy, and i´m not going to walk you through every accessory to determine which is cosmetic and which adds function

but let me ask you this, if it doesn´t add function, and is overall just a waste of money, why have it?

[Cthulhu 2020]

You're right. I'm not sure why I included the 'firearm crime' imbalance, as I've already stated outright that certain studies show the imbalance being the other way around (2.5 million). The imbalance I've been speaking of applies to unjustified homicides vs. justified homicides.

The study that claims 2.5 million people per year defend themselves with a gun was done in 1995 as a phone survey of only a few hundred people. They then took the response percentage of people who claimed... over the phone, that they had at some point in their life used a gun to defend themselves, and then applied that percentage to the entire population to reach that ridiculous claim that 2.5 million people defend themselves every year with guns.

The person who designed that study I'm guessing only graduated from high school on his football scholarship.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know whether to laugh or face palm at the irony here.

You haven't conceded that you were wrong once, even when you were blatantly wrong. You just turn to mockery.

[Mayhem]

You haven't conceded that you were wrong once, even when you were blatantly wrong. You just turn to mockery.

most of the time he leaves the thread for a few pages to return with mockery about something else, him linking this study was the first time being merely on topic for a long time

that he got reported for trolling was too funny, of course he thought to be wronged

[PhaelixWW]

The study that claims 2.5 million people per year defend themselves with a gun was done in 1995 as a phone survey of only a few hundred people. They then took the response percentage of people who claimed... over the phone, that they had at some point in their life used a gun to defend themselves, and then applied that percentage to the entire population to reach that ridiculous claim that 2.5 million people defend themselves every year with guns.

That's, like... all wrong. I wish I could say that I expected more from you, but... no.

It was a survey of 4977 people, not a few hundred. And it asked both about the previous year and the previous 5 years, not "some point in their life". The 2.5 million number comes from persons who reported a DGU in the previous year.

As a rebuttal, this attempt of yours is pathetic. Before you scoff, try actually checking your facts next time.

[Eroginous]

what has magazine capacity to do with this? if you´re able to have better control of the weapon, then that improves accuracy, and i´m not going to walk you through every accessory to determine which is cosmetic and which adds function

but let me ask you this, if it doesn´t add function, and is overall just a waste of money, why have it?

I think you're intentionally ignoring what I've been saying. Since this conversation isn't going anywhere, I'm just going to ask you: why do YOU think legislators are trying to classify certain firearms as 'assault weapons' and why do you think it's more necessary to regulate those weapons?

[Mayhem]

I think you're intentionally ignoring what I've been saying. Since this conversation isn't going anywhere, I'm just going to ask you: why do YOU think legislators are trying to classify certain firearms as 'assault weapons' and why do you think it's more necessary to regulate those weapons?

i think they are doing this because they have very little leeway for anything regarding firearm legislation, also they probably are doing it to appeal to voters

i think every accessory should be looked at, and allowed or banned case by case, not banning the firearm itself but certain parts

i think a universal right for everyone to carry guns is not a great idea, people should have to prove that they are fit to be allowed/trusted with firearms around other people

what you do at your home, is up to you, but as soon as you want to carry open/concealed doesn´t matter, you have to get a license, you have to register your weapon and you have to pass a test and you can never be free of consequences for your actions

[Rukentuts]

The study that claims 2.5 million people per year defend themselves with a gun was done in 1995 as a phone survey of only a few hundred people. They then took the response percentage of people who claimed... over the phone, that they had at some point in their life used a gun to defend themselves, and then applied that percentage to the entire population to reach that ridiculous claim that 2.5 million people defend themselves every year with guns.

Then assumes that these gunners think that their "uses" were even legal.

Because we haven't proven earlier in this thread, how being armed makes one more paranoid, or anything like that...

[Slant]

You honestly think that criminals will only kill people if they can do it with a firearm? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Nope. But at least hey won't kill with a firearm. That is the point I'm making.

[TZucchini]

I disagree. It could just as easily be the other way around, considering the attacker is looking at substantial jail time if they don't eliminate the witness, whereas the victim is not. Could that factor into the decision? In some cases, sure.

That could certainly be a factor in some cases. Fact of the matter is that there are probably hundreds of different factors going into the determination to pull the trigger, from the perspective of both the attacker and the victim. Which is why it's probably just as likely that, all things being equal, a victim is just as likely to pull the trigger than the attackers. Especially when someone is of the believe that their life is in imminent danger.

Moreover, if there was an imbalance, which is possible; if an attacker was more likely to pull the trigger than a victim, I would be willing to wager it would be somewhere between 2-3 times more likely. But 36 times more likely? I don't see that as realistic in the least.

If a crime is halted in its incipient moments, then technically the crime still occurred (just with "attempted" tacked onto the front), though it is very rarely ever reported or recorded as such.

I have a really difficult time believing that people rarely report attempted assault and/or robbery. Especially those which were serious enough from them to draw a firearm.

In fact, many DGU cases are probably not even thought of by the "victim" as a criminal incident, since it was prevented before it really happened. So many incidents of DGU were likely never even discussed during the NCVS questionnaire.

Again. I have a hard time believing that a victim of an attempted crime, one which elicited the use of a firearm, wouldn't think of said crime as a "criminal incident."

And, of course, this hasn't even begun to address the several limitations placed on the DGU numbers that I've already outlined. From a scientific standpoint, the numbers are just no where near reliable.

[Ghostpanther]

Nope. But at least hey won't kill with a firearm. That is the point I'm making.

But nope, not going to happen here in the US. Gun ownership is a guarantee right under our Constitution for good reasons. It is a very effective tool for self defense. A weak or elderly person is not much of a match with a lot of other tools against a stronger opponent. Even back in 1776, they understood this.

[rhandric]

Nope. But at least hey won't kill with a firearm. That is the point I'm making.

Oh yes, because death by knife (or car, or hammer, or any other method) is fine, because at least it isn't a firearm!

[Deletedaccount1]

I think you're intentionally ignoring what I've been saying. Since this conversation isn't going anywhere, I'm just going to ask you: why do YOU think legislators are trying to classify certain firearms as 'assault weapons' and why do you think it's more necessary to regulate those weapons?

The answer is because the NRA wants to as much damage control as possible assuming a bill was passed but that is probably not going to happen when they pay off the entire GOP and half the southern caucus of the Democrats.

[Tinykong]

that he got reported for trolling was too funny, of course he thought to be wronged

Right, because this happened?

I wish I was anti-gun, you guys live in a fantasy land that must be just a treat to exist in.

- - - Updated - - -

Because we haven't proven earlier in this thread, how being armed makes one more paranoid, or anything like that...

Oh, the unbelievably irony.

[Mayhem]

Right, because this happened?

#36185

nope, of course not, no sir