Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Who said it needs anything? An unsubstantiated opinion is just that: unsubstantiated. You have absolutely no proof or evidence to back your claim except conjecture and paranoid chicken little fears.

I don't need proof to back up my opinion. You, on the other hand, need proof to back up your statement of fact. You've been given multiple opportunities to supply proof. You've failed. Let's just move one.

You might have a foot to stand on here, if the second amendment wasn't regulated and irresponsible usage wasn't already covered by existing laws. The only thing you have on your side is negligence.

What are you even talking about? You still haven't admitted that people can behave irresponsibly without causing injury.

Boy, you certainly didn't let that stop you from forming a biased opinion and spouting it on the internet, did you?

You've ceased to make any sense.

"I have no idea one way or the other," which was in reference to the number of irresponsible vs responsible gun owners.

My opinion was based on a completely unrelated subject: whether or not firearm ownership as a right discourages responsible ownership. It's an interesting topic, one we haven't even delved into, but that you keep bringing up to distract from your unproven statement of fact.

At this point I can only assume that your posting for the fuck of it, or to get in the last word. I believe that I've thoroughly demonstrated that your position is completely baseless, and void of evidence. Pretty much done here unless you have something new to add. (hint: you don't)

[xuros]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Stop it.

Might as well say ban guns from ever being touched by Conservatives or Republicicans. They seem to be the majority of people who think these murderers should have access to firearms.

Right?

Newp if you read the post I clearly say to take it away from them. Leave it in the hands of the people that follow the law with guns.

- - - Updated - - -

We should always lock up our guns when we don't use them with kids in the house to keep them safe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHeXC7L85s

[Mayhem]

What was that about needing to take classes on math, again?

gun ownership on decline, gun deaths not declining, only when looked at per 100k

you do understand we´re talking about responsible gun owners, right? taking into account non gun owners to proof that gun owners are responsible is a bit ridiculous, but i´m not suprised

What did you say about it being on the rise?

see above

it´s like you both can´t follow the discussion and try to be sneaky, funny though

[ugotownd]

gun ownership on decline, gun deaths not declining, only when looked at per 100k

you do understand we´re talking about responsible gun owners, right? taking into account non gun owners to proof that gun owners are responsible is a bit ridiculous, but i´m not suprised



see above

it´s like you both can´t follow the discussion and try to be sneaky, funny though

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...p-decline-u-s/

I'll leave this here for you. It's one of those SCIENTIFIC polls where they got there numbers for your declining data.

[Tinykong]

I don't need proof to back up my opinion. You, on the other hand, need proof to back up your statement of fact. You've been given multiple opportunities to supply proof. You've failed. Let's just move one.

As long as you're willing to accept that you are spouting unsubstantiated opinions which are based on conjecture and paranoia, sure, let's move on.

- - - Updated - - -

gun ownership on decline, gun deaths not declining, only when looked at per 100k

Compares percentage of households who identify as owning guns to per capita death rates.

Complains that people have poor math skills.

you do understand we´re talking about responsible gun owners, right? taking into account non gun owners to proof that gun owners are responsible is a bit ridiculous, but i´m not suprised=

Because no one has ever been killed with a firearm by someone who didn't own any firearms, ever.

[belfpala]

Newp if you read the post I clearly say to take it away from them. Leave it in the hands of the people that follow the law with guns.

And mostly were legal, law abiding, gun owners before the fact. Not all. Most.

I still haven't seen any gun nuts fully address my point that almost every gun used in crimes was at some point a legal gun.

[TZucchini]

As long as you're willing to accept that you are spouting unsubstantiated opinions

Yes. My statement was unsubstantiated. That's why it started with "I believe."

Your statement was also unsubstantiated, but it was stated as fact.

As long as you understand the difference, we can move on. Otherwise, I'm more than willing to spend 10 more pages asking you for evidence. Shall we?

which are based on conjecture and paranoia, sure, let's move on.

Bwahhhh? The belief that easy access to firearms and it's existence as a right discourages responsibility is based on paranoia? How is that even possible? I feel like you're just throwing out words and hoping something sticks.

[Svifnymr]

I still haven't seen any gun nuts fully address my point that almost every gun used in crimes was at some point a legal gun.

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.

[TITAN308]

I still haven't seen any gun nuts fully address my point that almost every [insert any thousands of other items here] used in crimes was at some point a legal [insert thousands of items here]

Fixed that for you;

No one is addressing it because its off the radar.

One of my fountain pens is a completely legitimate item until I stab someone in the eye with it.

[Tinykong]

Yes. My statement was unsubstantiated. That's why it started with "I believe."

Your statement was also unsubstantiated, but it was stated as fact.

As long as you understand the difference, we can move on. Otherwise, I'm more than willing to spend 10 more pages asking you for evidence. Shall we?



Bwahhhh? The belief that easy access to firearms and it's existence as a right discourages responsibility is based on paranoia? How is that even possible? I feel like you're just throwing out words and hoping something sticks.

Still going with that failed "easy as bread" nonsense, huh?

Your irrational fear of firearms is paranoia and has been shaping your extremely biased opinions for thousands of pages, that post was no different. You have absolutely no basis for your opinion other than bias and conjecture.

[Endus]

Fixed that for you;

No one is addressing it because its off the radar.

One of my fountain pens is a completely legitimate item until I stab someone in the eye with it.

The point is not that "pen control" would stop pen-stabbings.

It's that when we find someone with a pen stabbed in their eye, we can check the pen registry and track down the owner and ask him how his pen got in that eye.

And maybe, if someone has a history of stabbing people with pens, we won't sell them more pens.

[TITAN308]

All Ive gathered so far is a group of people want to control what another group of people can own.

That pretty much sums up the history of Earth - since forever.

Its always been about control and always will be.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is not that "pen control" would stop pen-stabbings.

It's that when we find someone with a pen stabbed in their eye, we can check the pen registry and track down the owner and ask him how his pen got in that eye.

And maybe, if someone has a history of stabbing people with pens, we won't sell them more pens.

The problem is the government has abused every facet of their control since... forever. Why people continue to willing walk into this pit fall over and over and over is beyond me.

I doubly dislike one group of people who would use the government as THEIR weapon of choice to assert control over another group of people.

This is not about firearms. Never has been and never will be.

Everyone here can argue till their blue in the face that this is for our safety, or for the children, or any other heart string tugging line you can imagine, but its not about the gun. Its about control.

God made man, Samuel Colt made them even.

Some people do not like this one bit. Not. One. Bit.

[Svifnymr]

The point is not that "pen control" would stop pen-stabbings.

It's that when we find someone with a pen stabbed in their eye, we can check the pen registry and track down the owner and ask him how his pen got in that eye.

And maybe, if someone has a history of stabbing people with pens, we won't sell them more pens.

So when he said that no "gun nuts" have fully addressed his point, he meant it as a part of the discussion on registration?

Because we've been discussing it for many pages, what is there to be fully addressed?

[Ghostpanther]

Can a gun owner handle a firearm irresponsibly, or can a driver drive their car irresponsibly, without causing injury?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they can. But how does that change that the great majority ( 90%+ ) are responsible?

- - - Updated - - -

but it is not:

rate of gun ownership declined:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us...anted=all&_r=0

number of incidents increased: (though that´s only fatal ones, can´t find stats on firearm related injuries over all, but i´m just guessing it´s on a rise as well)
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/...ction_inj.html yeah you have to do it yourself can´t link the stats

oh and just for the record:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117480

sure, the great majority is responsible

Duh. So the rate of gun owners has declined and the incidents have increased according to the linked info. Only thing I stressed and it is still true that the great majority of gun owners are responsible. The one from abcnews does not prove most gun owners are not safe and responsible. I mean come on..out of less then 100 households surveyed? And who says you have to lock up your unloaded gun to keep them safe from kids? A loaded weapon of course should not be left anywhere unsafe around kids. You can have the ammo stored someplace safe from kids and separate from the guns and the guns are basically useless.

[TZucchini]

Still going with that failed "easy as bread" nonsense, huh?

Your irrational fear of firearms is paranoia and has been shaping your extremely biased opinions for thousands of pages, that post was no different. You have absolutely no basis for your opinion other than bias and conjecture.

Tiny...Now you're just repeating yourself over and over without adding anything new to the conversation.

You made a statement of fact. You failed to back it up. I will now gracefully bow out of our conversation, as you've proven yourself incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they can. But how does that change that the great majority ( 90%+ ) are responsible?

Where are you getting the number 90% from? Is that a guess? How can you be certain that the great majority of firearm owners are responsible?

[Eroginous]

The point is not that "pen control" would stop pen-stabbings.

It's that when we find someone with a pen stabbed in their eye, we can check the pen registry and track down the owner and ask him how his pen got in that eye.

And maybe, if someone has a history of stabbing people with pens, we won't sell them more pens.

Except for the fact that we already track down the owner without the need for a registry. And we avoid selling him more pens without universal background checks.

You know, when the law is actually followed and enforced.

How is it relevant? Do I really have to explain that for you? /sigh....

Let's just feign exasperation because it somehow magically refutes a logical question.

If someone is irresponsible, and doesn't cause an injury to someone else, how exactly is that relevant to anything? If the net effect of an act is the same as that act not being committed, it cannot possibly be relevant, except maybe in your world of coulda, shoulda, woulda.

If it is possible to be irresponsible without injury, then you quite obviously can't use that statistic as the single piece of evidence for the statement "the vast majority of gun owners are responsible."

If it is possible to be irresponsible without injury, then you obviously can't account for the instances of irresponsibility without injury in the same manner that you would account for instances of irresponsibility that results in injury. In fact, the importance of accounting for cases of injury/death in the US is precisely because those cases resulted in injury or death. Not because there was an instance of irresponsibility.

There are several other actions that qualify as "irresponsible," that never end up causing injury. If you're purposefully excluding those variables without proving that they're statistically insignificant, then you've just engaged in some really terrible science.

See, this isn't a science forum. This isn't a place where scientists come to discuss and debate their peers about theories within the peer review process. This is a gaming forum, where we have random gamers discussing their views on gun control in the off topic section of said forum. As such, it is the argument that's important here. If your argument cannot stand on its own merit, no amount of studies or 'science' is going to change that.

None of us needs to provide a study or statistic to understand the fact that acting irresponsibly significantly increases the chances of injuring yourself or another person. I don't need to do math or science to understand that getting behind the wheel of a car after having a dozen drinks is going to significantly increase the chances of me hurting or killing someone. I don't need to be Albert Einstein in order to understand how leaving my loaded gun sitting on a coffee table with my 4 yr old running around is going to significantly increase the chances of someone getting hurt or killed.

You keep failing a basic principle: people aren't statistics. They don't behave a certain way because statistics inform their actions. They behave in a manner consistent with their experiences and beliefs, none of which has anything to do with statistics, studies, or congressional reports. None of that means dick to a person who finds themselves in a situation where possessing a gun may give them a better chance of survival. You want people to behave like statistics, instead of like people.

Again, and this is the last time I should have to say this, your argument fails on its most basic premise. We don't need to do anything except point that out to you. Come back with a better argument, maybe we can continue this conversation.

Until then, common sense > your logic.

[Rukentuts]

See, this isn't a science forum. This isn't a place where scientists come to discuss and debate their peers about theories within the peer review process. This is a gaming forum, where we have random gamers discussing their views on gun control in the off topic section of said forum. As such, it is the argument that's important here. If your argument cannot stand on its own merit, no amount of studies or 'science' is going to change that.

Yeah science is pointless believe what you want to.

[Eroginous]

Yeah science is pointless believe what you want to.

No, science isn't pointless. It's just not relevant to this particular discussion, especially when you and others keep linking poorly done studies and statistics as some sort of 'scientific' proof to back your ridiculous arguments. As I said, if you can't even formulate a coherent argument, no amount of studies or statistics will help your case.

[Rukentuts]

Studies are not pointless simply because airchair analysts on the sidelines say they are. In fact, the frequency that you all are nitpicking only reeks of intentional ignorance, desperation, and rationalization.

[TITAN308]

Ironic post is ironic?