Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

Did you know that higher ownership of guns corresponds to a higher rate of crime? Because we have already proven that too.

Show proof.

[TITAN308]

I don't commit crimes. Why do you want my guns?

[lockedout]

I don't commit crimes. Why do you want my guns?

I'll bet in his "scientific study" they lump legally and illegally owned firearms into 1 category. I'm waiting to see it though.

[TwoNineMarine]

Guys.

Ruken lost his guns when his boat flipped over. Duh. It happens to all of us.

[Tinykong]

Conveniently forgetting that firearms lend a dramatically increased rate of successful suicide over most other methods.

Incoming mental gymnastics about how this is irrelevant.

There's enough hand waving in this thread to make a gentle breeze.

Because if you didn't have access to firearms you couldn't easily kill yourself with a $19.99 bottle of helium and a trash bag.

[lockedout]

Guys.

Ruken lost his guns when his boat flipped over. Duh. It happens to all of us.

I would be so pissed .

[Rukentuts]

Conveniently forgetting that firearms lend a dramatically increased rate of successful suicide over most other methods.

Incoming mental gymnastics about how this is irrelevant.

There's enough hand waving in this thread to make a gentle breeze.

Incoming ignorance oh the effectiveness of suicide methods and their effects on rates...

Edit: Too late.

[lockedout]

I don't even own any guns.

Except these 2?

12 gauge and a .22 that were my fathers.

[Rukentuts]

Except these 2?

I see lockedout still fails the 4th grade grammar lesson on tense.

Maybe you should go back to blaming races for things.

[lockedout]

I see lockedout still fails the 4th grade grammar lesson on tense.

Maybe you should go back to blaming races for things.

So you did own them but no longer do? Because earlier you were claiming you never owned them.

[militaryspartan]

So you did own them but no longer do? Because earlier you were claiming you never owned them.

The question was "did he own/use"......

He has used fire arms, that were OWNED by his father. Thus he has never OWNED firearms, but he has gone out and shot them before.


There is a very big difference between owning an item and using one.

[vaeevictiss]

The question was "did he own/use"......

He has used fire arms, that were OWNED by his father. Thus he has never OWNED firearms, but he has gone out and shot them before.


There is a very big difference between owning an item and using one.

well now this is interesting since a lot of the anti gun people like to say its always gun owners shooting people. What about those criminals using a stolen gun to kill someone? They didnt own it, so they arent a gun owner...

[militaryspartan]

What is an "unregistered" firearm?

Certain states/countries do require the registration of firearms. Though in the US there is no Federal registration of small arms, certain states such as California require that sales of handguns in 1990 and now long guns that were not purchased prior to 2014 to be registered with the state. Previously the sale of a fire arm was not recorded unless mailed in by a party (someone involved in the sale/purchase). Information includes the serial #, place and time, etc.

[Tinykong]

Incoming ignorance

You posted. Too late.

[militaryspartan]

well now this is interesting since a lot of the anti gun people like to say its always gun owners shooting people. What about those criminals using a stolen gun to kill someone? They didnt own it, so they arent a gun owner...

.....if it's stolen then wouldn't the person who stole it claim it was theirs at any point other than answering to any form of law enforcement? Thus claiming they are an owner given that the odds that they will likely give the item back willingly prior to any criminal activity, legal requirement to do so without threat, or without intent to frame original owner is incredibly unlikely.

[TZucchini]

Dish it but can't take it, huh? So you can link studies but nobody's allowed to analyze their findings? There's some Orwellian doublethink for you. A great step forward for the idea of people thinking for themselves.

You can think for yourself all you'd like. Don't expect me to take some rough armchair analysis of a detailed scientific study seriously.

Fact is, these studies are published in peer reviewed journals. That's part of what makes them scientific. You're completely free to analyze and dispute the findings, as is anyone. Go ahead and submit your published work, and allow the author the chance to rebut your findings. Or better yet, find someone else that's already done so, and published their work in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe even find a few studies that refute the findings.

Until then, I'll stick to the findings of the studies, and you can stick to your armchair analysis. I'm completely comfortable with that.

[Eroginous]

Show proof.

The 'anti gun' argument broken down into 3 phases:

1. Point out 'facts' and 'statistics' about how guns make society a dangerous place while arguing that no guns would make society a safe place.

2. Make up hyperbolic statements about how people who have guns are just fraidy cats.

3. Insist that you just want to make the world a better place and gun owners are misguided dolts who can't possibly be doing anything good or useful by being armed.

[TITAN308]

Certain states/countries do require the registration of firearms. Though in the US there is no Federal registration of small arms, certain states such as California require that sales of handguns in 1990 and now long guns that were not purchased prior to 2014 to be registered with the state. Previously the sale of a fire arm was not recorded unless mailed in by a party (someone involved in the sale/purchase). Information includes the serial #, place and time, etc.

I know. I was being obtuse on purpose. Thankfully I live in a somewhat free state. ha!

[PhaelixWW]

There is a very big difference between owning an item and using one.

In a thread titled "Hello, I'm an American Gun Owner" Rukentuts posted:

Believe it or not, even I own two weapons. Of course, neither is the stereotypical handgun.

A .22 rifle and 12 gauge shotgun. Used them both to hunt and keep vermin (skunks, possums, coyotes, raccoons) off my property.

Of course, sometime between when I posted this quote a few pages ago and now, he's gone there and deleted the post.

Yeah, he's got nothing to hide.

[Rukentuts]

The 'anti gun' argument broken down into 3 phases:

1. Point out 'facts' and 'statistics' about how guns make society a dangerous place while arguing that no guns would make society a safe place.

2. Make up hyperbolic statements about how people who have guns are just fraidy cats.

3. Insist that you just want to make the world a better place and gun owners are misguided dolts who can't possibly be doing anything good or useful by being armed.

All this coming from a guy that breaks laws to obtain guns.

- - - Updated - - -

You can think for yourself all you'd like. Don't expect me to take some rough armchair analysis of a detailed scientific study seriously.

Fact is, these studies are published in peer reviewed journals. That's part of what makes them scientific. You're completely free to analyze and dispute the findings, as is anyone. Go ahead and submit your published work, and allow the author the chance to rebut your findings. Or better yet, find someone else that's already done so, and published their work in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe even find a few studies that refute the findings.

Until then, I'll stick to the findings of the studies, and you can stick to your armchair analysis. I'm completely comfortable with that.

He'll "refute" you with experimental "findings" he obtained from raw data because he doesn't understand why variables are controlled. Apparently 8th grade science class was hard or something.