Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Actually you just were, calling it a myth.

Purchasing firearms for defensive purposes does not equal using firearms for defensive purposes.

The NRA perpetuates the myth. "You need a firearm to protect yourself! The only thing that stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" These types of statements are myths. The reality, which you seem to not dispute, is that purchasing firearms for defensive purposes is counterproductive for society.

[Eroginous]

so it´s not a requirement, the people just vote because of how shiny a campaign is but not because of the topics/solutions the candidates present/represent

thought so

How does someone vote for you if your name isn't smeared all over the TV/Radio/Internet? That's what all this money is buying: publicity. Not to mention, nominations from your party who then puts your name on a ballot. The only way for the current political systems to not elect one of the candidates who spends millions (or billions) of dollars on their campaign, is if everyone just decided to not vote. Even if they wrote in a name, no one would agree on the same one. There's like 330 million people in the US.

So is it a requirement, like the kind where you have to show up with X amount of money to get into office? Not really. But it is a requirement that you spend the fuck out of money on your campaign, or you are significantly less likely to get elected. That's why Joe the Plumber isn't going to be elected to public office. Not unless he has deep pockets from organized crime or something similar.

[lockedout]

Purchasing firearms for defensive purposes does not equal using firearms for defensive purposes.

Neither one of those is a myth. Keep digging your hole.

- - - Updated - - -

The NRA perpetuates the myth. "You need a firearm to protect yourself! The only thing that stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" These types of statements are myths. The reality, which you seem to not dispute, is that purchasing firearms for defensive purposes is counterproductive for society.

No one mentioned the NRA or any of their statements, keep moving those posts.

[TZucchini]

Neither one of those is a myth. Keep digging your hole.

Why yes. Yes it is. The sentiment "I need a firearm to protect myself" is a myth. Protecting oneself with a firearm is incredibly rare. Firearms are used offensively far more often then they're used defensively.

No one mentioned the NRA or any of their statements, keep moving those posts.

Clarifying a position for an extremely confused individual is not moving the goal posts.

[TITAN308]

In other news the new CZ Scorpion EVO3 is hitting dealers in less than a month.

Already have mine reserved.

I think I'm going to nickname it "The Ruken".

[Tinykong]

Purchasing firearms for defensive purposes does not equal using firearms for defensive purposes.

The NRA perpetuates the myth. "You need a firearm to protect yourself! The only thing that stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" These types of statements are myths. The reality, which you seem to not dispute, is that purchasing firearms for defensive purposes is counterproductive for society.

Arguing about myths while spewing myths.

[PhaelixWW]

Firearms in the United States are used offensively far more often then they're used defensively. That's why purchasing firearms for defensive purposes is a myth.

Pretending that this is a fact despite the fact that you haven't proven it (because you can't) is pathetic.

Introducing firearms to society, in the same way that America has done, is inherently bad.

Another statement of fact that, you know, isn't.

[Rukentuts]

Pretending that this is a fact despite the fact that you haven't proven it (because you can't) is pathetic.

Because John Lott says so

[PhaelixWW]

Protecting oneself with a firearm is incredibly rare.

Only if you consider the only use of a firearm being to shoot and kill a person. Which, clearly, you do.

Too bad that's not the only way to use a firearm, however. Especially defensively.

[Rukentuts]

Only if you consider the only use of a firearm being to shoot and kill a person. Which, clearly, you do.

Too bad that's not the only way to use a firearm, however. Especially defensively.

Yes, and then you like to ignore every other single classification of gun crime when posting raw data

[PhaelixWW]

Because John Lott says so

You think Lott's numbers are bad? Prove it. Besides, his are not the only high estimates of DGU's that you'd have to counter-prove.

But I won't hold my breath, because you can't.

You can only rely on ad hominems, after all.

[Rukentuts]

You think Lott's numbers are bad? Prove it.

You mean where I already cited his history of making shit up?

You can only rely on ad hominems, after all.

You can attack Hemenway as "a hack" and then link Lott? Talk about a double standard and hypocrisy of massive proportions.

[PhaelixWW]

Yes, and then you like to ignore every other single classification of gun crime when posting raw data

Do you even make sense to yourself anymore? Your wild and pitiful flailings sure as hell sound like gibberish to me. You don't even have a point. I might actually take you seriously if you bothered trying to oppose my position with actual real information and data, but every time you just spew "raw data", I know you have nothing of substance to add and are just relying on hilarious ad hominems.

And, of course, everyone can see this about you, which I find delicious. Keep digging that hole.

[Rukentuts]

I know you have nothing of substance to add and are just relying on hilarious ad hominems.

Yeah, that's why you handwaved my studies because Hemenway "is a hack".

And in this link a dude that fabricates data and admits to sockpuppeting?

[PhaelixWW]

You mean where I already cited his history of making shit up?

I don't recall seeing that anyone had proved that he made shit up, only that people accused him of making shit up.

You can attack Hemenway as "a hack" and then link Lott? Talk about a double standard and hypocrisy of massive proportions.

When I attack Hemenway, I do so by pointing out the flaws in his work. I haven't only ever run around and say "Hemenway sucks! Ignore him! Lol! You posted Hemeway!"

[Rukentuts]

I don't recall seeing that anyone had proved that he made shit up, only that people accused him of making shit up.

So yes, just to reiterate. You case is based on an admitted sock puppetier that can provide his data while taking money from gun manufacturers. The epitome of academic integrity, no doubt.



When I attack Hemenway, I do so by pointing out the flaws in his work. I haven't only ever run around and say "Hemenway sucks! Ignore him! Lol! You posted Hemeway!"

You mean those flaws of controlled inputs not lining up with raw data? Yes I remember that. Such reason.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, that's why you handwaved my studies because Hemenway "is a hack".

I'm pretty sure I almost always have substantive grounds when I dismiss the findings of a study. I rarely ever handwave. But you view it as all the same, since you're categorically incapable of understanding logic and reasoning.

But enough back-and-forth. Arguing directly with you gets nowhere, it's like hitting a training dummy that doesn't even know it's a training dummy.

[Rukentuts]

I'm pretty sure I almost always have substantive grounds when I dismiss the findings of a study. I rarely ever handwave. But you view it as all the same, since you're categorically incapable of understanding logic and reasoning.

But enough back-and-forth. Arguing directly with you gets nowhere, it's like hitting a training dummy that doesn't even know it's a training dummy.

Next time, don't cite an admitted sock puppetier that takes money from gun manufactuere s and then when asked for data for replication, can't provide it and then frame him as having integrity in any way while simultaneously dismissing other studies because armchair raw data "science".

[TZucchini]

Pretending that this is a fact despite the fact that you haven't proven it (because you can't) is pathetic.

Prove it? Conclusively? Sure. That's next to impossible. But there's a mountain of evidence that suggests that that statement is true.

The Gun Violence Archive puts the number of defensive uses each year at extremely low numbers. These are verified and reported incidents. Klecks survey and the NCVS reports both indicate that over 50% of respondents report their DGU's to the police. So even doubling that number results in a pathetically low amount of DGU's.

There's other studies that also examine reported cases of DGU to police officers, and compare it the number that should have been reported during that same time frame, again based on Klecks and NCVS findings. The DGU numbers come out incredibly low.

Other studies show that defensive uses are vastly overshadowed by offensive uses.

We also have Kleck own admission that 35-64% of DGU's are illegal.


There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that offensive uses are far greater than defensive uses.

[Rukentuts]

And then there's the shadow of doubt over the legality of these "defensive" uses as well.

At this point we need proof that they are not only the majority but that this majority are legal.