Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Catta]

Oh, ok. So I just wish we could some how create a class for adults focused around teaching common sense.

Care to point where exactly that was lacking in my post then?

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 12:17 AM ----------

Are we really going to argue about why the US has a higher crime rate than Denmark?

No. Just that the population size is largely irrelevant to the rate. But not to the overall number.

[Laize]

Actually i just took the homicide rates from Wikipedia. Not much jigsaw there. Its like when discussing healthcare and someone says its harder for the US because there are more people - but that also means that there are more tax money, more workers etc etc. I dont really see the scope of the city being the reason rather than the socio economic factors.

And I've had plenty of math, thank you very much.

In fairness, there is only "more tax money" insofar as we have a lot more money in an absolute sense.

The fact is that about 80% of that money belongs to the top 20% of earners... and it comes off as class warfare when you attempt to take that from them.

[Catta]

In fairness, there is only "more tax money" insofar as we have a lot more money in an absolute sense.

The fact is that about 80% of that money belongs to the top 20% of earners... and it comes off as class warfare when you attempt to take that from them.

Viva la Revolution...?
I guess one way to slowly change the inequality in earnings would be to take some of the tax money and make better education accessible for everyone. I could see it do magic over if not a single then 2 generations.

[Laize]

Viva la Revolution...?
I guess one way to slowly change the inequality in earnings would be to take some of the tax money and make better education accessible for everyone. I could see it do magic over if not a single then 2 generations.

To be perfectly honest, we don't even need to take more tax money. Tax-wise, the US benefits from an incredible economy of scale. Tax receipts alone total about $25,000/year per household in the country. We just spend it on stupid shit.

I think it'd be the best thing ever if the federal government would subsidize higher education. Would benefit the economy greatly.

And really, a better education is all you need to take a bigger piece of the pie for yourself. You don't have to legislate it away from others.

And it's not like people at the top will get poorer just because the people at the bottom get richer.

Wealth distribution is about as unequal in Denmark and other European nations as it is anywhere else.

[Catta]

To be perfectly honest, we don't even need to take more tax money. Tax-wise, the US benefits from an incredible economy of scale. Tax receipts alone total about $25,000/year per household in the country. We just spend it on stupid shit.

I think it'd be the best thing ever if the federal government would subsidize higher education. Would benefit the economy greatly.

And really, a better education is all you need to take a bigger piece of the pie for yourself. You don't have to legislate it away from others.

And it's not like people at the top will get poorer just because the people at the bottom get richer.

Wealth distribution is about as unequal in Denmark and other European nations as it is anywhere else.

Im pretty sure we are the lowest inequality in the western world...

[PhaelixWW]

It's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're is an assault weapon because you have 100 bullets.

It's a well known fact that FusedMass has no idea what she's talking about, makes up fake statistics, and ignores posts with links to factual data that don't support her narrow, myopic view.

Everything you said there was wrong, by the way. You'd know that if you opened your mind and stopped ignoring information.

It is not only offense when you make comments. It's against the rules of the site. That's like me calling you a troll every single time you post and completely ignoring what you are saying.

But I didn't you a troll. I just stated some facts.

Fact: You often claim to know something about this topic which turns out to be incorrect information.
Case in point: Your claim that assault weapons "have 100 bullets" despite repeated posts showing you that the magazine capacity has everything to do with the magazine, nothing to do with firearm, and can apply to any firearm with a magazine.

Fact: You make up statistics.
Case in point: Your claim that "it's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're [sic] is an assault weapon" is blatantly fabricated. Not only did you try to say that it was a fact, but you also tried to say that it was well known to be so.

Fact: You ignore posts with factual data and refuse to learn from your mistakes.
Case in point: The other two facts posted above have been repeatedly proven, and yet you still make the same false claims.

So... all three of these facts were directly relevant to the statement I quoted.

That's fine but calling names is virtually when you have no argument. It's like stomping your feet throwing a little temper because you didn't get it.

And I didn't call you any names. You only see what you want to see, which doesn't even remotely resemble the truth. If anyone here doesn't get it, it would be you.

In fact you saying it's a well known fact. Just blows up your so called fact. Because it isn't.

Aaaand yet you said those exact same words first. I was merely echoing you. So what does that say about your "it's a well known fact"?

It's misleading to say something like that. And it seriously calls into question the creditably of your other posts.

You're making up statistics and you want to talk about my credibility? That's a laugh.

I am here to debate not insulting. If you want to insult that's fine but TAKE IT OUT OF THE THREAD.

Everything I said was directly related to the thread and its factual content. So, uh, yeah.

And the fact that you refuse to respond to factual data that contradicts your statements, and then repeat the statement again as if it were proven, shows that you don't really have any interest in debate here.

But by all means, let's get back to the actual subject matter instead of your failed attempts to dismiss me by characterizing me as a little child with a temper.

Please provide some "proof" that assault weapons cause twice the number of fatalities of other shootings.

[Laize]

Im pretty sure we are the lowest inequality in the western world...

In terms of income? Yes. In terms of wealth?



And while, yes, that's markedly more equal than the US, it's far from equal.

That means that, in Denmark 1996 (I had a tough time finding more recent measures. At least in graph form.) the top quintile in Denmark held 98%+ of the country's wealth.

How was this possible? Easily. The bottom 40% had a combined -18.1% (Negative net worth) of the wealth.

[FusedMass]

But I didn't you a troll. I just stated some facts.

Fact: You often claim to know something about this topic which turns out to be incorrect information.
Case in point: Your claim that assault weapons "have 100 bullets" despite repeated posts showing you that the magazine capacity has everything to do with the magazine, nothing to do with firearm, and can apply to any firearm with a magazine.

I said magazine size 100 bullets should be banned regardless of the weapon. I directed that banning the assault weapon would do little. The people who make the guns like in 1994 ban would just slightly change the weapon so it would be legal under the law. Regardless of the weapon it should only have 10 bullets max. That was my argument. I cannot be held responsible if you can't tell that.

Fact: You make up statistics.
Case in point: Your claim that "it's a well known fact twice as many people will get shot when they're [sic] is an assault weapon" is blatantly fabricated. Not only did you try to say that it was a fact, but you also tried to say that it was well known to be so.

No it's not. You seem to have made a massive mistake. Messing up your own point of view and labeling it as FACT. You are not sole decider on here to what a person is scolding me from your arm chair and trying to dictate what I am and am not. Both sides of the argument could call out each other for mis leading information.

Yet I not once have called into question a poster and calling it a little known fact they are massively incorrect. That right there blows up the integrity of my actual argument but knowingly saying something untrue trying pass it off as fact. You are attacking me directly and instead of the argument.

Fact: You ignore posts with factual data and refuse to learn from your mistakes.
Case in point: The other two facts posted above have been repeatedly proven, and yet you still make the same false claims.

Again. I have almost never in my life seen someone massively mess up the texted book meaning with point of view and fact. Let's get this straight. Everyone has a point of view and obviously they are conflicting you are NOT all mighty. You are not above everyone else and you seriously need to stop the crap mixing your personal point and view and actual proven facts.

I'm not on all this time. Sometimes honestly I don't want spend my time with petty stuff like this arguing back and forth over something that's not in debate. It takes away from the actual argument. You really do need to look up meaning of facts and look up point of view. Unless it's science data. It's your point of view.

I'm not on here all the time. Sometimes I don't have time to respond to each and every person but if they remind me I'm likely to respond. I do not on purpose ignore people unless they make a history of personal attacks. Even then if they show they can talk without insulting I remove them from ignore. Case and point Lemon then I removed him from ignore after shown he could have an actual debate.


Get over it.

So... all three of these facts were directly relevant to the statement I quoted.


And I didn't call you any names. You only see what you want to see, which doesn't even remotely resemble the truth. If anyone here doesn't get it, it would be you.

Oh Burn..I guess you got me pretty good there..NOT..seriously this back and forth..if anyone does get it..is childish...again if a poster has not responded for sake assume they have a life and something going on that goes not circle around you. They likely forget. Was doing something. Throwing a temper because you were not responded to in a timely manner is childish and I don't even do that.

Aaaand yet you said those exact same words first. I was merely echoing you. So what does that say about your "it's a well known fact"?



You're making up statistics and you want to talk about my credibility? That's a laugh.

If I didn't think you were being serious. I would be mildly amused on a certain level. Yes. It does call into your creditably. Even the polls reflect more then double support the assault weapon ban are you insulting each and everyone of those posters as educated liberals who have no idea what they're talking about. When you make a claim to a certain poster instead of data mixing your point and view and fact. It waters down whatever post you made in the past because it shows how full of crap some people are by on intention saying fact and mixing that with your own point of view.

Everything I said was directly related to the thread and its factual content. So, uh, yeah.

And the fact that you refuse to respond to factual data that contradicts your statements, and then repeat the statement again as if it were proven, shows that you don't really have any interest in debate here.

Again I'm not on here all the time and sometimes the thread goes to the next page. Sometimes I don't feel like writing out eight separate responses to separate people that doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. I'm likely responding to one poster while on accident forgot about another poster. It's called kindly reminding a person about a post.

Like with Lazie. I reminded him kindly after he didn't answer my question the first time. I didn't accuse him of ignoring it on purpose. I figured he had stuff to do when he asked me a question. I kindly reminded him and he answered.

But by all means, let's get back to the actual subject matter instead of your failed attempts to dismiss me by characterizing me as a little child with a temper.

Please provide some "proof" that assault weapons cause twice the number of fatalities of other shootings.

Actually let's not. Least not with you right now. I have ignored very very few people on here and even when I do I feel somewhat guilty. If they show they can post without personal insults like widely claiming a poster is doing this and using that as same text book definition as a fact. Then I remove them from ignore. You know why. It takes time and energy to respond to a wall of text like this.

Which is a ton of words which almost virtually say nothing expect messing up your own point of view as fact. Till you are a stable peace of mind and have a sober response. I think it's best I ignored you to not de-rail the topic. This back and forth is not healthy and personally I don't get sucked into petty insults at each other.

[Sicarus]

Right here.



And don't try to say I'm sound-biting or taking you out of context, that's exactly what you said that pertains to full-autos being better than semi's due to the semi-automatic rifle's incapability of long ranges.

Which is false, lol.

Also on that same post, you said;


Adam Lanza was not a kid, he was an adult. He also never used the Bush Master 223 of death you so vehemently argued about until compiling evidence came forth that he actually used pistols. You're also going off on a slippery slope argument, which, many have claimed to be illogical. Military Style Weapons only refers to how the gun looks.

Or would you put a large scary looking man in jail for looking intimidating?

Also, this;



Your poll is factually incorrect/invalid due to the allowance of foreigners to vote on the poll.

Where is your proof that most Americans supported the ban? Just because a senator voted for it, doesn't mean that's what his constituents wanted. And just because they were banned once, doesn't give you the legitimate reasoning that they need to be banned again, not only did the ban not work, crime rose, and in some cases, found the ban had slightly increased murder rates.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/

Even the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that banning assault weapons would have relatively no effect on gun violence, and they found that the assault weapons that you just can't stand, are rarely used in crimes.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

So, if they're not hurting anyone, why do you care?

But I bet you're going to say, what about that percent of a percent that dies, don't I care about them?

Well, no, I don't, I mean it sucks and it's tragic, but when you think about it, it's really not that bad, people die every day, you have to realize that, to think death doesn't happen and that it's this terrible thing is just plainly ignorant and denying the facts of life.

Anyway, proof pls.

Fused still hasn't replied to this, I think I've proven her wrong.

[FusedMass]

Fused still hasn't replied to this, I think I've proven her wrong.

It IS Sunday and I do have a LIFE. I cannot reply to a thousand people per day. It's not logically possible to sit here just so YOU feel comfortable. Why the heck am I such a special snow flake that I am so unique out of the other posters you feel I must personally respond to you or you throw your insults. Well go ahead if you feel insulted feel free to throw a temper it's just a refection upon you and then I really will ignore every single post you make.

[Sicarus]

Regulation does not mean banning them, people need to realise there is a huge difference here. Very few want an outright ban, but mention regulation and they think you are trying to steal away their weapons and take away their rights.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 04:59 PM ----------



Regulate guns like cars



I cannot see how any reasonable person can be against this. Treat guns like cars, they are just as dangerous.

Guns aren't just as dangerous as cars, cars are even more dangerous and lethal.

Also, cars are not a right, they are a privilege. Arms, however, are a right.

Regulation IS banning.

If you're regulating that guns can only have 10 round magazines, that's banning magazines of a higher capacity.

The last 4 words of the Second Ammendment, "shall not be infringed."

You may say, well it's not infringing if we're only taking away X!

You'd be wrong, here's the dictionary definition of, infringed.

encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

Especially the bolded part.

[Garnier Fructis]

If arms are a right, and regulation is banning, why can't I carry around knives of any size and shape, bombs, packets of anthrax, bazookas and halberds? Arms can be regulated, don't be silly.

Even free speech is regulated, and that's a more important right.

[Sicarus]

They are more dangerous. One is a mean of transportation that has death as results of accidents and the whole industry and legislation is making steps to make it more safer when accidents do occur, while the other is a lethal weapon with only one purpose and it's gun industry is only making them easyer to use, more powerfull aka more deadly. So no, you can't regulate them the same, guns needs to be regulated more if by the end of the day you want to stop fire arm deaths.

And regulations for fire arms goes both ways, for legal guns and for illegal ones. Also you can't have one without the other and the vast majority of illegal weapons were legal at some point, US manufactured ones were 100% legal at start.

So you're saying 100% of car-related deaths are sheer accidents?

Certainly some of those had to be on purpose.

And what does it say that the device designed for transportation causes more death than the device used for, as you would state, killing people.

Where is your evidence that the gun industry is making firearms easier to use, more powerful, or more deadly? I'll advise you to look at the homicide rate of Chicago, guns are regulated heavily there, and it's, well, a shithole.

This weekend, I went at shot at my range, I didn't kill, wound, or cause any accidents. I was safe the entire time.

The last part of your "argument" makes no sense, either.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 07:53 PM ----------

If arms are a right, and regulation is banning, why can't I carry around knives of any size and shape, bombs, packets of anthrax, bazookas and halberds? Arms can be regulated, don't be silly.

Even free speech is regulated, and that's a more important right.

I wasn't aware packets of anthrax were arms.

They can be regulated, but they're not supposed to be, the regulation is actually entirely illegal, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

Why does everyone always use the argument of, you shouldn't be carrying around X or why can't I carry around X? That's ridiculous and not a credible argument to use.

All of the rights are equal in importance.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 07:56 PM ----------

It IS Sunday and I do have a LIFE. I cannot reply to a thousand people per day. It's not logically possible to sit here just so YOU feel comfortable. Why the heck am I such a special snow flake that I am so unique out of the other posters you feel I must personally respond to you or you throw your insults. Well go ahead if you feel insulted feel free to throw a temper it's just a refection upon you and then I really will ignore every single post you make.

Wow Fused, you said you'd be happy to respond in detail.

What happened to that? You're a "speshul snowflake" because you're the least informed on guns, and all you've done is rehash the same points despite being proven, time and time again, that you're wrong.

I'm not throwing a temper, I'm disappointed because you went against the very thing you said you would do, your credibility has suddenly dropped to a new level of nothing.

And here's where you said you'd be happy to respond.

Do you mind showing me the exact quote where I said that in detail. My memory is a bit foggy. If you can do so I would be happy to respond in detail.

[Garnier Fructis]

I wasn't aware packets of anthrax were arms.

They can be regulated, but they're not supposed to be, the regulation is actually entirely illegal, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

Why does everyone always use the argument of, you shouldn't be carrying around X or why can't I carry around X? That's ridiculous and not a credible argument to use.

All of the rights are equal in importance.

Even though "arms" usually refers to firearms, the term encompasses all weapons. Anthrax can and has been used as a weapon. Also, why is that a ridiculous argument? It is a weapon, and it is regulated (banned).

Also, what about the regulations on free speech? Are those just as illegal as the regulations on knives? Should we be allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Should we be able to stand on another person's property and say whatever we want?

[Sicarus]

Funny thing is, that's a semi-automatic shotgun.

Actually it's a break-action over and under, it only holds 2 rounds.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 08:03 PM ----------

Even though "arms" usually refers to firearms, the term encompasses all weapons. Anthrax can and has been used as a weapon. Also, why is that a ridiculous argument? It is a weapon, and it is regulated (banned).

Also, what about the regulations on free speech? Are those just as illegal as the regulations on knives? Should we be allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Should we be able to stand on another person's property and say whatever we want?

No, I'm saying the argument of literally carrying them around is ridiculous.

Yes, the regulations on free speech are entirely illegal as well. From the first five words, "Congress shall make no law", and yes, you should be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, but that doesn't mean you're going to do it, or that other people will do it.

Not if it's private property, the owners have every right to restrict you from coming onto the land they own.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 08:04 PM ----------

I don't see a pistol grip, barrel shroud, or folding stock.

All three of those things have little to no effect on the guns performance.

The Pistol grip makes it easier to hold, sure.

The barrel shroud just makes it so you don't shoot your hand.

And the folding stock reduces accuracy if you intend to shoot that way.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 08:07 PM ----------

Relevant:



Here's the man himself, who wants to ban all firearms! He's a lefty -- quite literally!

I actually think it's silly that the White House felt compelled to release a photo of Obama skeet shooting. But I think it says more about the people involved the gun debate rather than the actual substance of the debate itself (which is also lacking).

Strange and foreign is the idea that a politician would use a photo-op to make themself look better! Who knew?

If a president who wasn't left-leaning said he wanted to ban marijuana, but then later used it, I bet you'd have a different tone.

[Kujako]

Here's the man himself, who wants to ban all firearms!

Says who other then the voices in Glen Becks head?

[Garnier Fructis]

No, I'm saying the argument of literally carrying them around is ridiculous.

Yes, the regulations on free speech are entirely illegal as well. From the first five words, "Congress shall make no law", and yes, you should be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, but that doesn't mean you're going to do it, or that other people will do it.

Not if it's private property, the owners have every right to restrict you from coming onto the land they own.[COLOR="red"]

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place constitutes inciting panic, which can cause injury and has caused deaths before. That you would come out and say that this is fine and should be allowed implies that you value your rights above other people's lives.

[FusedMass]

Snip .

That night I went to bed after I posted that to you. I got on and saw someone who had quoted me earlier in the day. Again I swear you and all the same people went to the same school because when you make things like "Your creditably has dropped to new low"..you're acting like moral authority. Just for that I won't respond to condensing tones.

Now back on topic. It IS a fact that the supreme court will take up this case. How might anyone ask? Same way ObamaCare went to the supreme court. If The President get's a law passed in congress banning the sale or magazine size it will without doubt be questioned if its constitutional or not. They will look at it and issue down a ruling. No doubt it will be as historic as ObamaCare because it's the first law of it's kind.

Our system is only about 200 years old they're are some laws that have not been put to the test. While Fox News would scream it's unconstitutional they came back with their argument blowing up in their face when the court ruled with him. Now despite what anyone say's about cosmetic features of the weapon. The real issue if they can get a law passed and it will be upheld.

If it is upheld there is no one to question it. It will be the law of the land as the highest supreme court will have issued their ruling. That is my main focus right now. I could bicker and fight about the tiny details. But that right there would be law. That would be fact and that would without question be upheld. Anyone who say's it wouldn't be upheld even if supreme court agree's is a liar.

[Morbownz]

You'll soon be drinking Tea and greating people with a "what ho".

[Sicarus]

That night I went to bed after I posted that to you. I got on and saw someone who had quoted me earlier in the day. Again I swear you and all the same people went to the same school because when you make things like "Your creditably has dropped to new low"..you're acting like moral authority. Just for that I won't respond to condensing tones.

Well, it has dropped, you're not doing what you say you will. And your non-answer is enough proof for me that you're wrong. I'm not acting like moral authority, I'm saying you, and anything you say, no longer has as much credibility, due to the overwhelming proof given.

And of course, you won't respond because of condescending tones, which you supply, often.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 09:08 PM ----------

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place constitutes inciting panic, which can cause injury and has caused deaths before. That you would come out and say that this is fine and should be allowed implies that you value your rights above other people's lives.

I never said it was fine, but it should be allowed, even if it is a terrible thing to do, otherwise, it would go against your right of free speech.

I don't place value on every single individual life, no, I'm not their mother, I don't, and shouldn't have to. We, in the United States, all have the same rights.