Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

I think the same scene by which Alien vs. Predator passes the Bechdel Test speaks very concisely about whether you "need" a gun for self-defense and/or whether it could be useful for self-defense --

Alexa 'Lex' Woods: [Rousseau is loading a pistol] Seven seasons on the ice, and I've never seen a gun save someone's life.
Adele Rousseau: I don't plan on using it.
Alexa 'Lex' Woods: Then why bring it?
Adele Rousseau: Same principle as a condom. I'd rather have one and not need it, then need it and not have one.

[hakujinbakasama]

You're not understanding. You don't need a firearm to defend yourself. There's a lot of options. Some more viable than others, as some evidence suggests.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." Another myth that travels along the same lines. It's inherently false.

Defensive gun use is rare. Purchasing a firearm for defensive purposes is not likely to help.

1. Can you prove or define the bold? (including your own)

2. The quote used is generally out of context.

on another note... STORIES!!!

Number 1
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4
Number 5

These stories happen WAY more than people think. The problem with knowing is that they don't make national headlines, only local. It makes it extremely difficult to track down. The most disturbing one, which I've tried endlessly to find, happened post 2000 where I believe and entire family of 5-6 was taken hostage, mid-day, by a man who was armed with a knife. The family was compliant, willingly bound each other per the mans request, and were staged in a main bedroom. He was going to just leave them but realized that they would be able to inform the police which direction he went. If I recall correctly, he murdered all 5 or 6 though a variation of strangulation, stabbing, and blunt force trauma. No guns were involved in the incident. The man was on the run from the police initially.

While I may agree with the following video, I also recognize that some people are willing to die rather than face life in prison. In my personal stance, I'd not opt for an edged weapon fight.


Number 6

[Eroginous]

You're not understanding. You don't need a firearm to defend yourself.

Why do you keep repeating this bullshit? You don't need to defend yourself at all. You can just let someone beat you, rape you, and/or kill you. That's totally an option.

There's a lot of options. Some more viable than others, as some evidence suggests.

In a self defense situation, the goal is to avoid harm. Not engage in hand to hand combat like you're some sort of ninja or gladiator. You make far too many assumptions for anything you say to be relevant or useful to someone in a self defense situation. If your goal isn't to avoid harm, why even defend yourself?

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." Another myth that travels along the same lines. It's inherently false.

If you can't separate the things idiot advocacy groups say from the practical aspects of gun ownership, then I don't know why you even bother posting. I'm 99% sure no one here actually believes the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is with a gun.

A gun just happens to be the most appropriate offensive tool to use against a bad guy with a gun. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Defensive gun use is rare. Purchasing a firearm for defensive purposes is not likely to help.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how stupid and untrue they are.

[TZucchini]

And you are not understanding that as long as there are some situations in which you need a firearm to defend yourself, the statement:

"You don't need a firearm to defend yourself" is false.

Which situations do you need a firearm to defend yourself? Which situations have no other viable options other than: "firearm or dead"? There's always the possibility of becoming a victim, even if you have a firearm.

There's this widespread belief in America that you need a firearm for defense. The evidence tells us that you're more likely to be a victim of firearm violence, than successfully defend yourself with a firearm. How are all these other first world countries defending themselves without prevalent ownership, and permissive firearm laws?

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how stupid and untrue they are.

And everyone is entitled to ignore evidence they don't agree with.

[hakujinbakasama]

Which situations do you need a firearm to defend yourself? Which situations have no other viable options other than: "firearm or dead"? There's always the possibility of becoming a victim, even if you have a firearm.

There's this widespread belief in America that you need a firearm for defense. The evidence tells us that you're more likely to be a victim of firearm violence, than successfully defend yourself with a firearm. How are all these other first world countries defending themselves without prevalent ownership, and permissive firearm laws?

- - - Updated - - -



And everyone is entitled to ignore evidence they don't agree with.

Why do people even bother engaging him anymore?

[Tinykong]

Which situations do you need a firearm to defend yourself? Which situations have no other viable options other than: "firearm or dead"? There's always the possibility of becoming a victim, even if you have a firearm.

There's this widespread belief in America that you need a firearm for defense. The evidence tells us that you're more likely to be a victim of firearm violence, than successfully defend yourself with a firearm. How are all these other first world countries defending themselves without prevalent ownership, and permissive firearm laws?

Demonstrably and clearly you need a firearm to defend yourself against an attacker with a firearm.

There are some situations you need one so your absolute position one doesn't is wrong.

Other countries are other countries. They are not directly comparable and you know this.

[hakujinbakasama]

Demonstrably and clearly you need a firearm to defend yourself against an attacker with a firearm.

There are some situations you need one so your absolute position one doesn't is wrong.

Other countries are other countries. They are not directly comparable and you know this.

Yeah that doesn't hold up due to near limitless variables. Here's where I feel the conversation should end. Police have them for a reason. Their reason isn't more justifiable than mine. /done

Also, I've never seen a case where a gun killed someone. Guns do not kill. Argument over

[Mayhem]

I don't share in you and PRE911's irrational fear of firearm violence. The likelihood of being victimized is insignificant.

so you don´t need one?

It's directly related to his argument. He said I don't need a firearm to defend myself.

So, how do I defend myself against someone armed with a firearm?

so you do need one?

... better sorry than safe

i don´t get your argument here, you yourself said that in some scenarious a firearm wouldn´t make a difference, now asking the question "how do i defend myself against someone armed with a firearm?" is nothing more than dishonest, it depends obviously on the circumstances as you yourself acknowledged

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah that doesn't hold up due to near limitless variables. Here's where I feel the conversation should end. Police have them for a reason. Their reason isn't more justifiable than mine. /done

Also, I've never seen a case where a gun killed someone. Guns do not kill. Argument over

right and next on "the most ridiculous sentences in gen-ot" - Military have cruise missiles. Their reasons isn´t more justifiable than mine.

[Eroginous]

Why do people even bother engaging him anymore?

Is that directed at me? Or PRE 9-11?

And everyone is entitled to ignore evidence they don't agree with.

What evidence? A study is not evidence, it is a study. That's why we use different words for those two things.

Just because a study was done, does not mean its conclusion is evidence or even factual...

right and next on "the most ridiculous sentences in gen-ot" - Military have cruise missiles. Their reasons isn´t more justifiable than mine.

1. Where do you buy a cruise missile?

2. Can a person carry a cruise missile or effectively use one for personal self defense?

3. Does the constitution give us a right to carry cruise missiles?

See, the answers to these questions are why your comparison is not applicable.

[Mayhem]

1. Where do you buy a cruise missile?

2. Can a person carry a cruise missile or effectively use one for personal self defense?

3. Does the constitution give us a right to carry cruise missiles?

See, the answers to these questions are why your comparison is not applicable.

that you took the time to respond to this worries me a little

so let´s see it in the light the poster i quoted used it

the police have firearms. their reasons isn´t more justifiable than mine. - do you agree with this?

1. where do you buy firearms?
2. can a person carry a firearm or effectively use one for personal self defense?
3. does the constitution give you a right to carry firearms?
4. do any of the 3 questions above have anything to do with the statement posted?

[Eroginous]

that you took the time to respond to this worries me a little

so let´s see it in the light the poster i quoted used it

That you bothered to make a false equivalency between firearms and cruise missiles is what worries me. The person you quoted made a statement of fact about firearm ownership and how it differs between civilians and police. He stated that firearm ownership by the police is no more justified than civilian firearm ownership. We can parse his statement a number of ways, arriving at various conclusions depending on which culture and set of values we are discussing.

For example, police don't generally own firearms in Japan, the UK, and Switzerland (these are just a few examples, there are others). One is equally correct in making the statement 'Police don't have them for a reason. Their reason [for carrying] isn't more justifiable than mine.' The truth of the statement does not change when you go from one country where gun ownership is allowed to another where it is prohibited.

But you decided to ignore the point he was making and go for the false equivalency. 'The military owns cruise missiles.' So what? What does military weaponry have to do with civilian firearm ownership? Case in point:

1. Where do you buy a cruise missile? You can't.

2. Can a person carry a cruise missile or effectively use one for personal self defense? Nope.

3. Does the constitution give us a right to carry cruise missiles? Nope.

All things which are different with firearms. See? False equivalency.

1. where do you buy firearms? Federally licensed firearm dealers.
2. can a person carry a firearm or effectively use one for personal self defense? Yes.
3. does the constitution give you a right to carry firearms? Yes.

See? Different. Or, Not Equivalent.

[Mayhem]

That you bothered to make a false equivalency between firearms and cruise missiles is what worries me. The person you quoted made a statement of fact about firearm ownership and how it differs between civilians and police. He stated that firearm ownership by the police is no more justified than civilian firearm ownership. We can parse his statement a number of ways, arriving at various conclusions depending on which culture and set of values we are discussing.

For example, police don't generally own firearms in Japan, the UK, and Switzerland (these are just a few examples, there are others). One is equally correct in making the statement 'Police don't have them for a reason. Their reason [for carrying] isn't more justifiable than mine.' The truth of the statement does not change when you go from one country where gun ownership is allowed to another where it is prohibited.

so the "most ridiculous sentences"-part wasn´t enough of a hint that it´s meant to be a joke?

the bolded part however is factually wrong, as with a country where gun ownership is allowed the police have to assume that people are armed, while in countries where gun ownership is prohibited police generally don´t have to deal with armed people

but the real difference is that the police represent/exert the law and that isn´t always accepted by the people they meet, now as they have to assume that these people are also armed, they being armed is more justfiable than any civilian, unless the civilian has to deal with equal situations/circumstances

[Mormolyce]

1. Can you prove or define the bold? (including your own)

How about this?

In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes. Handgun crimes accounted for about 13% of all violent crimes. As measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the rate of nonfatal handgun victimizations in 1992--4.5 crimes per 1,000 people age 12 or older--supplanted the record of 4.0 per 1,000 in 1982.

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
U.S. Department of Justice / Office of Justice Programs / Bureau of Justice Statistics

[hakujinbakasama]

How about this?


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
U.S. Department of Justice / Office of Justice Programs / Bureau of Justice Statistics

Do you realize that doesn't prove anything I called into question via his post?

- - - Updated - - -

Is that directed at me? Or PRE 9-11?

That was directed at Pre

[TZucchini]

Do you realize that doesn't prove anything I called into question via his post?

Sure it does. It affirms that offensive uses are significantly more than defensive uses. Along with all the other evidence I've posted as well.

That was directed at Pre

People continue to engage me because I make good arguments for tighter gun control, backed by evidence, and that bothers them. Just like it bothers you.

- - - Updated - - -

What evidence? A study is not evidence, it is a study. That's why we use different words for those two things.

"A human is not a vertebrate, it is a human. That's why we use different words for those two things."

This has to be the worst argument you've ever made. A scientific study is a form of evidence. This is like 3rd grade material.

[Mayhem]

"A human is not a vertebrate, it is a human. That's why we use different words for those two things."

This has to be the worst argument you've ever made. A scientific study is a form of evidence. This is like 3rd grade material.

"a car isn´t a vehicle, that´s why we use different words for those two things"

i´m pretty impressed by now that he´s able to come up with this stuff

[Stormdash]

Better to say, perhaps, that a study is not conclusive, it's suggestive. But what else it can be is tangential, or ultimately a misplaced priority. To act like any of the studies settle anything relevant is to presuppose (unargued) that the things in the study are the most important questions for a society to consider in whether or not to curtail a fundamental individual liberty.

[Mayhem]

Better to say, perhaps, that a study is not conclusive, it's suggestive. But what else it can be is tangential, or ultimately a misplaced priority. To act like any of the studies settle anything relevant is to presuppose (unargued) that the things in the study are the most important questions for a society to consider in whether or not to curtail a fundamental individual liberty.

fundamental?

you´re right though, and i´m still waiting for studies that show the positive effects guns/firearms have on societies, crime, you name it

[Tinykong]

so you don´t need one

so you do need one?

... better sorry than safe

i don´t get your argument here, you yourself said that in some scenarious a firearm wouldn´t make a difference, now asking the question "how do i defend myself against someone armed with a firearm?" is nothing more than dishonest, it depends obviously on the circumstances as you yourself acknowledged

What part about:

I don't want to own a firearm

Are you getting confused by?

There are certainly some places and some situations in which a person needs a firearm to defend themselves.

People continue to engage me because I make good arguments for tighter gun control, backed by evidence, and that bothers them. Just like it bothers you.

Lols

[Stormdash]

fundamental?

you´re right though, and i´m still waiting for studies that show the positive effects guns/firearms have on societies, crime, you name it

Well, again, who gives a shit? The measure of an individual liberty is not it's net effect on society as a whole. Where is that written? That's what I meant by "misplaced priority". They have a positive effect on the human "anecdotes" that successfully use them to save their own lives and the lives of others, however much it might offend you.