Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

If that's your position, you're showing quite a lot of ignorance and denial, too. Lots of arguments on both sides have been crap, and lots have been solid.

Only his arguments are correct. Everyone elses arguments are crap.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, and everyone takes seriously someone that thinks gun control is like assaulting homosexuals.

Yeah, I do find it rather amusing that gunners think one can draw scientific conclusions from raw data. It seems to correlate with educational attainment statistics and gun ownership. I knew you wouldn't have anything of substance. You never will. You literally can't.

Did I say assaulting homosexuals was like gun control? Please quote me.

What I was trying to get across (which obviously flew right over your head) is that the government can, does, and will do bad things. Yet you seem to think they never ever can.

But instead you choose to take the wrong conclusion from my comment because you feel it helps fuel your argument (or lack thereof).

[Saucexorzski]

Defending this country from a foreign threat is slightly different than aggressively attacking a completely lawful government, elected through the democratic process, simply for passing laws with which you disagree.

Understand the difference?



No one's inferring that you're unintelligent.

Completely. But the oath is foreign and domestic. A right to life is meaningless if you are not allowed to defend it. Fight or flight were the options giving to all humans by god or nature, you choice. Your desire to remove the right to defend ones life with the common means of our time is an attack on a critical level of what life means to me. The " completely lawful government, elected through the democratic process" is backing its said laws with the power of force, Men and women, with arms.

"Gunner logic 101" is very much calling me an idiot and questioning my intellect. It sure as rain was not a complement and did not make me more please to continue conversing with you.

[bergmann620]

Rights are not intrinsic, they are socially decided paradigms.

The idea that we are endowed by our creator with some rights implies that they are intrinsic. There are rights that are intrinsic, and there are rights that are socially decided. One of our greatest tragedies as a nation is that we've taken so long, in many cases, to 'socially decide' to grant minorities their intrinsic rights.

[Rukentuts]

This is by far the most ridiculous comparison of the thread. Congratulations, that's quite an achievement.

Look at how he backtracks from that comedic statement.

[TwoNineMarine]

Look at how he backtracks from that comedic statement.

Look how both of you fail to answer either scenario. Let me retype it so you can't say you didn't see it.

If the government made it lawful to discriminate someone based off of their religion, would that make it lawful? Would it make it right?

[TZucchini]

Much like the false equivalency drawn between constitutional rights and state-issued privileges.

Oh. You mean there's a lot of differences between firearms are cars? And that comparing the two is an idiotic attempt to distract from the real issue at hand?

Dependency alone isn't enough to justify something.

Of course it is. Societal collapse is kind of a big deal.

As do guns for quite a lot of us.

This can't be argued. Remove cars. Society collapses. Remove firearms, society continues as normal.

The difference in functionality is astronomical.

[TwoNineMarine]

Oh. You mean there's a lot of differences between firearms are cars? And that comparing the two is an idiotic attempt to distract from the real issue at hand?


Of course it is. Societal collapse is kind of a big deal.



This can't be argued. Remove cars. Society collapses. Remove firearms, society continues as normal.

The difference in functionality is astronomical.

Oh you mean how gun control is an idiotic attempt to distract from the real issue at hand? Such as mental disorders, poverty, joblessness, and other factors that lead to violent crime?

[Eroginous]

Shows how much our argument was ignored. 9/11 and I linked studies for pages, only to be met with ignorance about the scientific method, and assertions that scientific surveys aren't real. Now we're just met with all sorts of bullshit 'equivalencies' like it's supposed to be compelling.

Your studies and surveys were ignored because you refused to acknowledge the faulty methods they used to arrive at their conclusions. No one here refuted the scientific method if and when it was actually used to arrive at a conclusion. Hint: the studies and surveys you linked did not. I already explained to you multiple times that putting the word 'scientific' in front of other words does not actually make them scientific.

There's really no point in wasting time with people that think gun control is like assaulting homosexuals. Try again. See if you can actually post an argument of substance. But you won't. No gunners really have thusfar.

There's no point in you posting here at all. Every single post you've made has either been some snide remark/personal attack on someone's character, or some poorly conducted study you link to try and support some vague 'anti gun argument' you never actually articulate. In fact, you conveniently ignored all of the arguments we make, acting as though addressing them in a quoted response is beneath you.

Now you want to claim you've won the argument by not actually participating in it at all?

Please. Go find a hipster forum to frequent. We don't need your non-contributions here.

-------------------

Also, since you guys missed it, I'll post it again, this time in bold:

Here's the problem. We HAVE regulation. Tons of it. There are something like 20k laws on the books across the US regarding guns. We have laws on the local level (city/town), state level, and federal level. Lots of them overlap and some of them are so obscene that they outright infringe on a person's ability to own or carry a firearm at all. When are you people going to finally say 'okay, we've got enough gun laws, we should maybe take a different approach?' Seriously, do we have to live in a society where the only people who can own guns are farmers, soldiers, police officers, and mountain men? Do we need to have so much restriction that only a stripped down rifle or shotgun are the allowable firearms civilians can own?

Where does the line get drawn? I'm not trying to argue a slippery slope, it's an honest question: if the current level of gun control in America is not enough, what is enough? If your position is that Americans should have a right to bear arms, what kind of arms should they be allowed to bear? How do you ensure that someone can have their rights but can't abuse them?

These are important questions because these are the basis of the gun control debate as we know it. It seems to me that you (and many others) are caught between this conflicting position where you want people to have their gun rights, but you don't want anyone to be able to do anything bad with those guns. How do you accomplish that?

[TZucchini]

Also, since you guys missed it, I'll post it again, this time in bold:

20,000 laws. Not 20,000 gun-control laws. That number is significantly smaller.

Here: Have some science.

It seems to me that you (and many others) are caught between this conflicting position where you want people to have their gun rights, but you don't want anyone to be able to do anything bad with those guns. How do you accomplish that?

I don't want people to have "gun rights." I don't want firearm ownership to a right, period. It should be a privilege reserved to only those individuals that have proven themselves responsible enough to own and operate.

[TwoNineMarine]

20,000 laws. Not 20,000 gun-control laws. That number is significantly smaller.

Here: Have some science.



I don't want people to have "gun rights." I don't want firearm ownership to a right, period. It should be a privilege reserved to only those individuals that have proven themselves responsible enough to own and operate.

Oh you mean like the kid in Cali who was legally allowed to purchase a firearm and then went on his rampage? The kid who never had any issues prior to his attack? Which is crazy because California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

[-aiko-]

"Gunner logic 101" is very much calling me an idiot and questioning my intellect.

I'm questioning your intellect for believing guns are required for your protection...

It's like you think that the US is the only country you are safe in because you have a gun. Silly.

[Titan2k10]

20,000 laws. Not 20,000 gun-control laws. That number is significantly smaller.

Here: Have some science.



I don't want people to have "gun rights." I don't want firearm ownership to a right, period. It should be a privilege reserved to only those individuals that have proven themselves responsible enough to own and operate.

That is like saying that I dont want you to have the right to free speech because I dont agree with what you are saying....Wow.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm questioning your intellect for believing guns are required for your protection...

It's like you think that the US is the only country you are safe in because you have a gun. Silly.

This is completely ignoring the cultural differences which play a HUGE role. That is extremely silly. Or are you saying that we need to mirror other cultures, which seems to be kill off one culture because that is something the more progressively thinking constituents do not support. What is it?

[bergmann620]

Oh. You mean there's a lot of differences between firearms are cars? And that comparing the two is an idiotic attempt to distract from the real issue at hand?

It's like you can't acknowledge that things can be alike in some, but not all, characteristics. If that were not the case, there would be no point in comparing things- as the only valid comparison for any given object would be an identical object.

This can't be argued. Remove cars. Society collapses. Remove firearms, society continues as normal.

The difference in functionality is astronomical.

So, you're saying the only choice in this hypothetical is cars/no cars? I get how responding to any of the other scenarios might cause problems for your narrative, but still...

Bottom line: Are you a "If we could save just one more life" person, or are you a "If we could save just one more life by regulating something that I have no interest or personal stake in" person?

Remove firearms, society continues as normal.

Yep. Including murders and suicides and violent crime. Just no self defense.

I'm also still waiting for that magic 'no guns' button that you're gonna push to get rid of them when they become illegal. I hope it works better than the 'No Alcohol' button did when they passed Prohibition, or better than the 'No Meth/Weed/Cocaine/Heroine etc' button is working now.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I love this infographic because it just shows that even though cars are more heavily regulated there are still more deaths related to motor vehicle accidents. More regulation on guns makes sense now....2A is a right sorry bud.

How many cars are used on public roads on a daily basis?

How many guns are fired into a crowded mob on a daily basis?

If you actually believe the second is ANYWHERE close to the first, I'm going to have to laugh, REALLY HARD.

Also, despite all that regulation, look how many cars are used. "Ermagerd you can't regulate our guns cause then no one will ever be able to get one!"

[-aiko-]

This is completely ignoring the cultural differences which play a HUGE role. That is extremely silly. Or are you saying that we need to mirror other cultures, which seems to be kill off one culture because that is something the more progressively thinking constituents do not support. What is it?

You almost had a good argument. Almost.

[bergmann620]

I'm questioning your intellect for believing guns are required for your protection...

Should I question yours for not understanding that it is an option that, depending on specific situations, can make you safer? It's a big country, with plenty of diverse conditions. When I was a kid, there are at least 2-3 times I can think of in which not having a gun would likely have led to my death. I don't own any now, as I'm currently suburban, and I'm more than comfortable letting my dogs provide security for me.

[petej0]

20,000 laws. Not 20,000 gun-control laws.

What kind of laws are you looking for?

I don't want people to have "gun rights." I don't want firearm ownership to a right, period. It should be a privilege reserved to only those individuals that have proven themselves responsible enough to own and operate.

How do you determine who is responsible and who isnt? Just because they are responsible now, does not mean they wont snap one day and commit vicious crimes in the future. How do you protect against that?

[Mayhem]

Look how both of you fail to answer either scenario. Let me retype it so you can't say you didn't see it.

If the government made it lawful to discriminate someone based off of their religion, would that make it lawful? Would it make it right?

as if you have to ask this question... look back a not more than 80 years in the south, treating people different was lawful and some people believed it was right, up untill it changed

[/B]

That is like saying that I dont want you to have the right to free speech because I dont agree with what you are saying....Wow.

no, it´s not, but i´m not suprised you guys seem to be able to compare guns to pretty much everything, like in this example the ability to communicate

[bergmann620]

How many cars are used on public roads on a daily basis?
How many guns are fired into a crowded mob on a daily basis?

Very few. Which seems like a pretty good reason to require less regulation than what is present for autos.

[Titan2k10]

How many cars are used on public roads on a daily basis?

How many guns are fired into a crowded mob on a daily basis?

If you actually believe the second is ANYWHERE close to the first, I'm going to have to laugh, REALLY HARD.

You are comparing the legal use of one item and the illegal use of another. Goodness false equivalency just gets thrown at you all the time...I wonder why?

- - - Updated - - -

You almost had a good argument. Almost.

You're right I was being facetious the point still stands that there is a gaping difference in cultures in countries that are always compared.