Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

No. I certainly wouldn't do that either. That would be victim-blaming. I'm advocating for prevention.

Right.

No, actually. It's not. This is why I asked you to define 'racism', because you clearly don't know the definition.

But regardless, I never stated I was fearful of minority males. So again, you're projecting.

So, just to be clear, it's not racist to be fearful that someone might commit a crime based on their race?

[TZucchini]

Right.

Right, what? I've explicitly stated I wouldn't blame a victim. I've explicitly stated that I would advocate for prevention before people become victims.

It seems like we've just gotten to the part where you say "Well I don't believe you, so I'm right, because I think you would act a certain way!" It's an interesting strategy, I suppose.

So, just to be clear, it's not racist to be fearful that someone might commit a crime based on their race?

Forgiving the obvious the goal post shift (being fearful of minority males to being fearful that someone might commit a crime based on their race), no, that's not necessarily racist. Racism involves the belief that one's own race is superior to others.

If someone was victimized by a group of young white teenagers, would it be racist if they were fearful around other groups of young white teenagers? Of course not.

[Mayhem]

Strawman argument, away!

so you already forgot about the time you´ve said "no further firearm regulation will have a positive effect on the crime rate" ?

Who said anything about specific uses? You're moving goal posts here.

that´s the discussion about net positive and net negative, you know?

You said guns are "generally bad." How many firearms are used in crimes every year compared to overall ownership?

again, talking about net positive and net negative

[Tinykong]

so you already forgot about the time you´ve said "no further regulation will have a positive effect on the crime rate" ?

Not all firearm regulation need to have an impact on the crime rate to be important, champ.

that´s the discussion about net positive and net negative, you know?

again, talking about net positive and net negative

No, it's not. There are more uses of firearms other than offensive and defensive, and you clearly said that the bad uses outweigh the good uses. How many firearms are used for hunting, recreation, sport? Those uses are part of the overall picture, you're ignoring them because it conflicts with your position.

[Mayhem]

Not all firearm regulation need to have an impact on the crime rate to be important, champ.

so, you´re arguing against your own statements, sure why not

i do find it funny that you use the term important

No, it's not. There are more uses of firearms other than offensive and defensive, and you clearly said that the bad uses outweigh the good uses. How many firearms are used for hunting, recreation, sport? Those uses are part of the overall picture, you're ignoring them because it conflicts with your position.

you´re right, when i was talking about overall bad i meant against people, and with sometimes good i meant to save people, why should i want to propose regulations regarding hunting, recreation and sport when we were talking about net positive and net negative in light of defensive and offensive firearm usage? or are you now going to implicate those numbers to show firearm usage is a net positive? that´ll be interesting,

this "your position" nonsense again?

your selective reading skills are quite amazing

[Tinykong]

so, you´re arguing against your own statements, sure why not

Suicide prevention has nothing to do with crime, and yet, regulations could impact it. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

i do find it funny that you use the term important

You find importance being subjective funny? I guess people do laugh at things they don't understand.

you´re right, when i was talking about overall bad i meant against people, and with sometimes good i meant to save people, why should i want to propose regulations regarding hunting, recreation and sport when we were talking about net positive and net negative in light of defensive and offensive firearm usage? or are you now going to implicate those numbers to show firearm usage is a net positive? that´ll be interesting,

this "your position" nonsense again?

your selective reading skills are quite amazing

So, you're moving the goal posts from "bad uses" and "good uses" to "bad uses against people" and "good uses to save people."

That sound we're hearing is you back peddling.

[Mayhem]

Suicide prevention has nothing to do with crime, and yet, regulations could impact it. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

what? why is this so hard for me do understand? when did you ever take this position? weren´t you the one arguing that safe storage couldn´t prevent suicides? so what firearm regulations do you think could have an impact on suicide?

You find importance being subjective funny? I guess people do laugh at things they don't understand.

reading is hard i know, i find it funny that you who doesn´t understand the term, uses it

So, you're moving the goal posts from "bad uses" and "good uses" to "bad uses against people" and "good uses to save people."

That sound we're hearing is you back peddling.

no, i´m not moving the goal post, because that´s what we were talking about, i know it´s hard for you to stay on topic but why don´t you give it a try from time to time?

[Tinykong]

what? why is this so hard for me do understand? when did you ever take this position? weren´t you the one arguing that safe storage couldn´t prevent suicides? so what firearm regulations do you think could have an impact on suicide?

Does safe storage encompass all the possible ways of preventing firearm suicide? It doesn't even constitute a meaningful prevention method.

reading is hard i know, i find it funny that you who doesn´t understand the term, uses it

Do you know what "subjective" means? One person might find suicide unimportant because it impacts so few people, and another person may find it important because they attempted it or know someone who killed themselves.

no, i´m not moving the goal post, because that´s what we were talking about, i know it´s hard for you to stay on topic but why don´t you give it a try from time to time?

Where do you come up with this shit? It's like you can't even keep up with your own post history after 1 page.

In response to my post:

I don't consider firearms a net negative to society. There hasn't been a comprehensive enough investigation into what it actually costs versus what benefits it provides, simply because such a comparison is impossible. The data is incalculable..

You said:

so we´re both making stuff up then i guess, you´re just believing in guns generally are a good thing sometimes used for bad reasons and my position is that guns generally are a bad thing sometimes used for good reasons

So clearly we're talking about total firearm ownership. You moved the goal posts to offensive/defensive uses because you need to ignore the vast majority of legal owners who don't use them against people because it conflicts with the argument you made here:

my position is that guns generally are a bad thing sometimes used for good reasons

[Mayhem]

Does safe storage encompass all the possible ways of preventing firearm suicide? It doesn't even constitute a meaningful prevention method.

answering questions is hard i know

Where do you come up with this shit? It's like you can't even keep up with your own post history after 1 page.

So clearly we're talking about total firearm ownership. You moved the goal posts to offensive/defensive uses because you need to ignore the vast majority of legal owners who don't use them against people because it conflicts with the argument you made here:

yep, see, we were talking about offensive and defensive firearm usage (reasons) and you then moved it to overall firearm usage, for the sake of it, because you yourself said there isn´t a comprehensive enough investigation into what it actually costs

why you´re now arguing about this rather than what we´ve discussed is up for speculation

[Tinykong]

answering questions is hard i know

I've already answered this question previously. You seem to be able to recall other posts, and yet you can't recall that one? Seems like you're just flailing around now.

yep, see, we were talking about offensive and defensive firearm usage (reasons) and you then moved it to overall firearm usage, for the sake of it, because you yourself said there isn´t a comprehensive enough investigation into what it actually costs

why you´re now arguing about this rather than what we´ve discussed is up for speculation

When you quote my post and respond to me, you are responding to what I am saying, not what other people are saying.

You even used the phrase "guns generally are a bad thing" when responding. What about the term "generally" says "offensive uses" exactly?

This back peddling and goal post movement is pathetic.

[PhaelixWW]

that´s the discussion about net positive and net negative, you know?

This whole focus on net positive vs negative is pointless, anyway.

Even if you could prove that firearm ownership is what you call a net negative (which you can't do), it wouldn't be a logically meaningful conclusion. In order for that statement to be meaningful, you'd have to be able to completely eliminate all firearms (which you can't do) in order to expect a positive result. Any broad application of additional gun control (as opposed to restrictions targeted specifically against people known to be a threat), will have a more substantial effect on law-abiding gun owners than criminal gun owners. As such, it would tend to proportionately lower the DGU count by more than it would lower OGU count, causing the gun control measure to be considered a net negative, not a positive.

And even if you could completely eliminate firearms, there's very little to suggest that many or most of those violent crimes wouldn't still occur, since you wouldn't be eliminating the violent impulse, merely the tool chosen to implement said impulse.

So in order to really consider firearm ownership a net negative, you'd have to consider not just DGUs and OGUs, but how many crimes would be averted by any particular gun control law vs. how many defenses would be unsuccessful with the same law.

Good luck trying to prove that.

[TZucchini]

This whole focus on net positive vs negative is pointless, anyway.

It's pointless to you, because it's very damaging to your argument.

Meanwhile, back in reality, applying a cost-benefit analysis to public policy is extremely valuable.

Even if you could prove that firearm ownership is what you call a net negative

We've provided substantial evidence for that theory. I really haven't seen much to counter it.

Any broad application of additional gun control (as opposed to restrictions targeted specifically against people known to be a threat), will have a more substantial effect on law-abiding gun owners than criminal gun owners. As such, it would tend to proportionately lower the DGU count by more than it would lower OGU count, causing the gun control measure to be considered a net negative, not a positive.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate these claims? Requiring a background check on all purchases...how will that disarm law-abiding gun owners disproportionately to non-law-abiding gun owners? That makes no sense. Any law-abiding gun owner could still pass the check and purchase a firearm.

And even if you could completely eliminate firearms, there's very little to suggest that many or most of those violent crimes wouldn't still occur, since you wouldn't be eliminating the violent impulse, merely the tool chosen to implement said impulse.

Is this where we argue that knives are just as lethal and effective as firearms in committing crimes?

[Tinykong]

We've provided substantial evidence for that theory. I really haven't seen much to counter it.

You've essentially just assigned a dollar amount to it and not compared that to the same analysis of the benefits.

[TZucchini]

You've essentially just assigned a dollar amount to it and not compared that to the same analysis of the benefits.

Actually, we've compared the number of incidents on both ends of the spectrum. We haven't even taken other factors into consideration, such as the psychological effects, which would undoubtedly be greater for criminal uses.

[Tinykong]

Actually, we've compared the number of incidents on both ends of the spectrum. We haven't even taken other factors into consideration, such as the psychological effects, which would undoubtedly be greater for criminal uses.

There is more to it than just offensive and defensive uses.

How much does manufacturing contribute to the economy? How about hunting, recreation and sport, how much does that contribute? If you want to claim a net loss to society, you need to compare everything, not just uses against people.

[TZucchini]

There is more to it than just offensive and defensive uses.

How much does manufacturing contribute to the economy? How about hunting, recreation and sport, how much does that contribute? If you want to claim a net loss to society, you need to compare everything, not just uses against people.

Economic benefit and victimization do not carry the same weight. Not by a mile.

[Mayhem]

I've already answered this question previously. You seem to be able to recall other posts, and yet you can't recall that one? Seems like you're just flailing around now.

i must´ve missed where you showed firearm control to reduce suicides, on what page was it?

When you quote my post and respond to me, you are responding to what I am saying, not what other people are saying.

You even used the phrase "guns generally are a bad thing" when responding. What about the term "generally" says "offensive uses" exactly?

This back peddling and goal post movement is pathetic.

i´m not back peddling, you yourself argued you can´t come up with conclusive numbers so it´s pretty irrelevant eitherway, if my wording was too odd for your pendantry i´ll say it again, i was talking only about offensive and defensive firearm usage, as was the topic at that time

[Tinykong]

Economic benefit and victimization do not carry the same weight. Not by a mile.

If you want to make an appeal to emotion, sure.

If you want to claim a "net negative" to society and cite injury and loss of life costs, you need to calculate the economic costs, as well.

If we suddenly make all firearms illegal (an extreme case) the economy would be negatively impacted. That's a societal cost, whether you like it or not.

[Mayhem]

There is more to it than just offensive and defensive uses.

How much does manufacturing contribute to the economy? How about hunting, recreation and sport, how much does that contribute? If you want to claim a net loss to society, you need to compare everything, not just uses against people.

why do you imagine we´re talking about regulating these things?

also, if you can find the manufacturer numbers it would be appreciated, if you want to bring it up as an argument and not another "but what if"

[Tinykong]

i must´ve missed where you showed firearm control to reduce suicides, on what page was it?

Still having trouble remembering what you posted? It has been a page or two now, I can see you are confused. You asked me about what regulations could prevent suicide, which I've already given the example of a grip that can't be used by children of gun owners. That could potentially reduce suicides.

i´m not back peddling, you yourself argued you can´t come up with conclusive numbers so it´s pretty irrelevant eitherway, if my wording was too odd for your pendantry i´ll say it again, i was talking only about offensive and defensive firearm usage, as was the topic at that time

Using the phrase "generally used" is not odd, it's clearly meant to convey that you are talking about all uses, not just a specific type. If you meant offensive/defensive uses, you should have said that, not "generally used."

What time is it? I think we might need to adjust our clocks because you back peddled so hard the Earth rotated slower.