Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Either it's "rare" or it's a "myth" can't be both.

What? What? Do you understand the definition of those words? An idea can't be rare. It can be true, or false (myth).

The idea that you need a firearm to protect yourself is a myth. It's a myth because a mountain of evidence suggests defensive use of firearms is incredibly rare, particularly when compared to offensive use.

Now if it's rare prove it with numbers and not an opinion.

I've provided loads of evidence. Just last page, I replied to Phaelix with this. Feel free to address it.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Then stop pretending your opinion is fact.

My opinions, indeed, are not fact. The evidence speaks for itself. Feel free to read it.

You called for an all out ban in the past.

Citation required.

[lockedout]

It's only arbitrary if you refuse to look at the body of evidence suggesting that current laws are insufficient.

You mean not enforced due to lack of money and manpower. We should write five thousand new laws that won't be enforced due to the same reasons right? That will make you FEEL better total knee jerk.

- - - Updated - - -

What? What? Do you understand the definition of those words?

myth miTH/Submit noun
2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

Rare: seldom occurring or found.

[Tinykong]

The idea that you need a firearm to protect yourself is a myth. It's a myth because a mountain of evidence suggests defensive use of firearms is incredibly rare, particularly when compared to offensive use. .

So, which is it? You don't need a firearm to defend yourself against all of these offensive firearm uses? Or you don't need a firearm because firearm offenses are so rare?

[lockedout]

Citation required.

You wanted the 2nd amendment repealed. What would you want in place after that? If it's repealed then I don't have the right to bare arms or do I? I am asking.

- - - Updated - - -

So, which is it? You don't need a firearm to defend yourself against all of these offensive firearm uses? Or you don't need a firearm because firearm offenses are so rare?

Not rare, a myth!

[TZucchini]

So, which is it? You don't need a firearm to defend yourself against all of these offensive firearm uses? Or you don't need a firearm because firearm offenses are so rare?

Nice false dichotomy.

[Tinykong]

You wanted the 2nd amendment repealed. What would you want in place after that? If it's repealed then I don't have the right to bare arms or do I? I am asking.

That's not a ban, it's just a de facto ban because if you have enough money you can get a firearm license.

It's the anti-gunner version of a poll tax.

[TZucchini]

You wanted the 2nd amendment repealed. What would you want in place after that? If it's repealed then I don't have the right to bare arms or do I? I am asking.

You said I called for an all out ban. A citation is required please.

Not rare, a myth!

The idea is a myth. Defensive uses are rare. Two separate things.

Now go ahead and take a look at all that science up there. Might do you some good.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a ban, it's just a de facto ban because if you have enough money you can get a firearm license.

Subsidize it for the poor. That shouldn't disqualify ownership.

[Tinykong]

Nice false dichotomy.

Nice hand waive.

[TZucchini]

Nice hand waive.

You presented me with a false dichotomy. What am I supposed to do with it?

[Tinykong]

Subsidize it for the poor. That shouldn't disqualify ownership.

That $174 billion cost savings is quickly shrinking.

[TZucchini]

That $174 billion cost savings is quickly shrinking.

Not when the subsidy funds come from a new ammunition tax!

[Tinykong]

You presented me with a false dichotomy. What am I supposed to do with it?

Asking you to clarify what you meant is a false dichotomy? Derp.

[TZucchini]

Asking you to clarify what you meant is a false dichotomy? Derp.

Saying "It can either be this, or that, which is it?" is a false dichotomy.

[Tinykong]

Saying "It can either be this, or that, which is it?" is a false dichotomy.

That's the false dilemma you set up. I just asked you which one you were going with.

[TZucchini]

That's the false dilemma you set up. I just asked you which one you were going with.

I didn't set that up. I stated that offensive uses greatly outnumber defensive uses. You're the one that said "well it can either be this or that, which is it."

It's a false dichotomy. I handwaved it. Do you have any other point here?

[Tinykong]

I didn't set that up. I stated that offensive uses greatly outnumber defensive uses. You're the one that said "well it can either be this or that, which is it."

It's a false dichotomy. I handwaved it. Do you have any other point here?

You said I "don't need a firearm to defend myself."

And then in the same post, implied that offensive uses are high, which contradicts the first point. I know you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and really could just believe both things, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt to clarify.

[TZucchini]

You said I "don't need a firearm to defend myself."

And then in the same post, implied that offensive uses are high, which contradicts the first point. I know you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and really could just believe both things, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt to clarify.

Those two points don't contradict each other. Maybe that's where you're getting confused?

[Tinykong]

Those two points don't contradict each other. Maybe that's where you're getting confused?

How does one defend themselves against an assailant wielding a firearm?

[petej0]

The idea that you need a firearm to protect yourself is a myth. It's a myth because a mountain of evidence suggests defensive use of firearms is incredibly rare, particularly when compared to offensive use.

If defensive use is rare then it isnt a myth! A myth means it wouldnt happen, that fact that there are rare occasions where people use firearms in defense is by definition not a myth.

I think what you mean is that the idea to protect yourself is an excuse to own a firearm. This would require you to know the fears and thoughts of someone. The majority of firearms being used offensively (according to you) and not defensively is not indicative of anything unless you know the legality of the guns that are being used offensively. If the majority of firearms being used to kill offensively are stolen or firearms used by criminals that would mean the majority or legally owned guns are not an issue and that gun ownership is not an issue.

That fact that you brought up excuses to own firearms (for defense) means there must be a "need" for someone to purchase. We live in a free country where no law abiding citizen has to justify their purchase of anything Boats, Homes, Land, Cars, TV, Phones, Computers...anything!

[Tinykong]

I guess needing one is a "myth" because I could always just kill a home invader with magic or an Austin Powers style Judo-chop.

Who needs firearms when you have anti-gun fantasy!