ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151909
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
2,195

Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"

Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!

The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?

  • 1,127 Replies
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

Also mentions that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered in grass which disproves his claim that Martin was bashing his head against concrete.

That supports GZ's case. The grass was wet, his back was on the grass, his head was on the sidewalk. The sidewalk was through the grass. He never claimed that his whole body was on the concrete.

Even if I did find them, what would stop you from claiming that Martin was hitting Zimmerman's head against them?

Because nobody but you is claiming that there were rocks in the grass. All the evidence puts the altercation on or near the sidewalk. It would put a lot of things into question.
apldeap123
offline
apldeap123
1,670 posts
1,500

Because nobody but you is claiming that there were rocks in the grass. All the evidence puts the altercation on or near the sidewalk. It would put a lot of things into question.


Also put into consideration that no one saw Martin and Zimmerman struggle. We can only take GZ's word.
Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
363 posts
2,835

That supports GZ's case. The grass was wet, his back was on the grass, his head was on the sidewalk. The sidewalk was through the grass. He never claimed that his whole body was on the concrete.

Because nobody but you is claiming that there were rocks in the grass. All the evidence puts the altercation on or near the sidewalk. It would put a lot of things into question.


Actually, Zimmerman's official statement is that while running down the street he lost track of Martin and was walking back to his truck when Martin attacked him. Zimmerman never once admitted to following Martin onto anyone's property and according to his statement the entire thing would have to have happened on the sidewalk or in the street.

Jonathan Good, who lives in the same townhouse complex as Zimmerman, said after hearing a noise behind his townhome...


That statement would indicate that the fight and shooting happened either in Good's backyard or the backyard of someone who lives right next to him. It's from the USA today article you posted earlier. So whether it be rocks or a walkway or whatever, the fact that Zimmerman's back was covered in grass contradicts his claim that Martin attacked him while he was walking on the sidewalk.
The_Russian3768
offline
The_Russian3768
35 posts
1,585

I think the common man should have a gun, one main reason is so this country does not turn into the wild west*middle east*, while the other is to protect himself. I do not know about you people but I would rather die fighting then die because I could not defend myself.

Where does my option come from? let's just say I used to live in a place where you could barely get a hand gun while the local mod or thugs could get any gun they wanted bust down the door and take what they want at gun point...

Koshionos
offline
Koshionos
864 posts
3,225

I believe in stricter gun control and regulations, though not to the extent of you can't even hold your friend or family members firearms, but there needs to be something more in place to prevent things like what happened today at my old high school. Marysville Pilchuck was just the subject of a school shooting, in which a 14 year old kid critically injured 4 students, killed one, then himself. It needs to be made more difficult to attain weapons, and greater monitoring needs to be put in place on the trade and purchase of firearms.

I do believe, however, that the common man can possess a firearm, as long as they have been subject to a background check prior to purchase or at the time of purchase.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,917 posts
21,160

In the light of the most recent shooting at Charleston and the fact there has been no thread about it yet, I decided to post the following in here, for obvious reasons.

I have just now read an article that addresses the situation of gun control in the US and compares it to other countries:
How US gun control compares to the rest of the world

The article addresses the points that are usually made in discussions about gun control, as in this very thread. It supports my opinion on the matter as it refutes common claims made by supporters of lax laws on gun ownership. The analysis makes it clear, in my opinion, that the US need to do something about it; either way this is an interesting read for both sides of the debate.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,878 posts
3,160

I'd suggest the problem the US really has is it's own culture and society. As things stand it's trapped itself in a situation where many people feel they need guns to protect them from the guns that everyone else has because of the guns which all the criminals have because all the police are armed with guns to protect them from criminals with guns.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,917 posts
21,160

That's where the comparison with Australia is interesting, the mention of this 'cultural shift' and the diminished presence of guns in everyday life as playing a role next to the mere restrictions.

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
363 posts
2,835

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it.

Less than 2 full sentences in and there's already an outright lie straight from the president's mouth. These kinds of attacks do happen in other "advanced countries", and while they may be less frequent in other countries those other countries also have significantly smaller populations, fewer immigrants, and are lower targets of international terrorist organizations.

This quote is promptly followed by highly questionable poll results. 9 out of 10 Americans don't agree on anything. Oh, and look they're even rebranding gun control legislation as "anti-crime measures". Using NRA extremists and conspiracy theorists as a strawman of those who oppose gun control comes next. Finally, it claims gun control laws in other countries have affects that crime rate statistics prove they don't. And all of that is just the first 1/5 of the article.

If I actually read the rest of the article is it going to get any better? You said

either way this is an interesting read for both sides of the debate.

but it seems like the only reason to think this article is anything other than rhetoric is because
It supports my opinion on the matter
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,864 posts
18,680

Less than 2 full sentences in and there's already an outright lie straight from the president's mouth. These kinds of attacks do happen in other "advanced countries", and while they may be less frequent in other countries those other countries also have significantly smaller populations, fewer immigrants, and are lower targets of international terrorist organizations.
Less frequency per capita is still less frequency per capita. Therefore, population is irrelevant.

Oh, and look they're even rebranding gun control legislation as "anti-crime measures".
Given the fact that the only other gun-related concern is suicide, this is only rational.

Using NRA extremists and conspiracy theorists as a strawman of those who oppose gun control comes next.
No. The point is that only the most extreme 10% of NRA members are opposing gun control. If you'd bothered to read the whole article, you would know this.

Finally, it claims gun control laws in other countries have affects that crime rate statistics prove they don't.
Well, no, it doesn't. If you want to use statistics as justification, you're going to have to actually provide those statistics and some reference of their source. Simply claiming that "there are some statistics somewhere that prove this is wrong in some way" isn't good enough.

If I actually read the rest of the article is it going to get any better?
Who knows. You might very easily have a more informed argument to present.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,917 posts
21,160

Less than 2 full sentences in and there's already an outright lie straight from the president's mouth. These kinds of attacks do happen in other "advanced countries", [...]

Technically, Obama's quote does not say 'these kind of attacks', but 'this kind of mass violence'. I guess the term is sufficiently loose to be twisted into anything, but the situation in the US is unique, even after normalizing for population, immigration and whatever.

This quote is promptly followed by highly questionable poll results. 9 out of 10 Americans don't agree on anything.

A poll is a poll. If you said their sample size was too small, that would be something; but if your only point is 'I don't believe the results', then why should I take this argument any more seriously than you take the poll? (Btw, if you click the link in the article, they give three more issues with 80/90% poll results).

Oh, and look they're even rebranding gun control legislation as "anti-crime measures".

The formulation seems to represent the situation in other countries, however.

Using NRA extremists and conspiracy theorists as a strawman of those who oppose gun control comes next.

The NRA propaganda was taken as reference because those are the arguments most often repeated by people who oppose gun control. If you are more moderate than those 'extremists', I have to wonder why the article makes you react so strongly.

Finally, it claims gun control laws in other countries have affects that crime rate statistics prove they don't.

The author claims to have studied gun violence in the US for 25 years; I trust he must be very familiar with the statistics.

If I actually read the rest of the article is it going to get any better? You said

- either way this is an interesting read for both sides of the debate.

but it seems like the only reason to think this article is anything other than rhetoric is because

- It supports my opinion on the matter


My bad. I intended to say that I think both sides should read the article carefully.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,099 posts
9,775

The author claims to have studied gun violence in the US for 25 years; I trust he must be very familiar with the statistics.

Not to mention he is a University professor, which yes, still means something when it comes to academic research.

And most importantly, aside from all the statistics, all the numbers and research, on the logical side, do you think criminals in a country where guns are so common will not have planned for the event that the victim/target may possess a gun?

Which is why the statistic percentage presented, "the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents" makes sense.

Moegreche
online
Moegreche
3,302 posts
18,020

I think it's important to assess this article for what it is. Although it reads like an argument in favour of gun control, it isn't one. Instead, this is an article that looks at - and attempts to defeat - some popular arguments against gun control. In other words, it works to undermine the anti-gun-control arguments, with only a bit of pro-gun-control argumentation thrown in. And really, the only arguments on this front have to do with tighter regulations on issuing gun licenses (e.g. more stringent background checks and legislation aimed at keeping guns in a secure safe).

As far as the statistics go, I don't think any of us are in a position to take them at anything other than face value. We would need to read the actual studies and/or relevant journal articles to properly assess the statistics based on these studies.

What we can do, however, is question what exactly these statistics show.

Take, for example, the second sentence of the article:
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued."

This (and the following sentence) carry the implication that the NRA had something to do with the lack of federal action. While this may be the case, the author needs to provide some sort of evidence for this claim. After all, there are many reasons why federal action might not have ensued that are completely independent of the NRA's agenda.

But more troubling is the following passage:
"Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from 1979-2012, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted RTC [right to carry] laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that are 4%-19% higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted these laws."

This is suggesting one of two things. In a weak sense, it's implying that violent crime rates would be lower had these states not adopted right to carry laws. There's a stronger claim, however, that RTC laws actually caused the increase in violence.

But the basic premise upon which these claims rest is a weak one. It cites a 4-19% increase in violent crime rates in these states. But it order to show that RTC laws had anything to do with this increase, we would have to build a time machine, go back, and then not adopt these laws to see the effect.

Odds are, the author used some sort of standard metric for expected change in violent crime. But even if such a metric was well-established and accepted, all it would show is that these states saw an increase in violent crimes. It's very difficult to link this matter of fact to a particular cause, such as RTC laws.

I think the most compelling point of the article is that gun control is a country-wide and even worldwide problem. People in countries with tight gun control can get what they need from other countries. The same goes even more so for discrepancies in gun control across U.S. states.

In short, any move towards effective gun control in the U.S. is going to have to come at the federal level. Particular states, regions, or cities imposing restrictions will do very little to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And this seems something well worth thinking about.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
- from article.

i lol'd. xD
=====================

just my opinion in short:
not all criminals are murderers.
less guns = less escalation of violent events = less deaths...

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
363 posts
2,835

Technically, Obama's quote does not say 'these kind of attacks', but 'this kind of mass violence'.

It's difficult to properly word "this kind of mass violence" in the context of my sentence and I decided for the slightly paraphrased version for simplicity.

I guess the term is sufficiently loose to be twisted into anything, but the situation in the US is unique, even after normalizing for population, immigration and whatever.

I've already discussed it in another thread, but overall the U.S. averages only slightly higher than seemingly peaceful European nations that do have gun control laws, like the UK, and that's without factoring in matters like population, landmass, population density, and population diversity.

The U.S. is also a very unique country. Our size, our wealth, our relative youth, our neighboring nations, and the number of immigrants are all vastly different from any European nation. There really is no solid comparison.

A poll is a poll.

You can't possibly be that naive. Most small children aren't that naive these days. News organizations, lobbyists, and corporations are all notorious for cherry picking who they poll for the sake of swinging the results in their favor. Any poll that says 90% of people agree probably chose 90% of the people they questioned from lists of individuals who publicly voiced the opinion that poll is supposed to sell. Polls are nothing more than a tool for manipulating public opinion, and media companies like ABC are the worst offenders.

The formulation seems to represent the situation in other countries, however.

Rebranding your stance to make it seem more friendly to the public is a common and cheap tactic of the two-party political system. It's why people who are against abortion identify as &quotro-life" and those for it are &quotro-choice". The type of people susceptible to this are more likely to join a cause that's supporting something and like to feel like they're supporting something positive, in my example the right to life or the right to choose how you'll live your life. In this case, gun control advocates are using the same means of manipulating stupid people into supporting their cause rather than using actual facts or evidence to convince those in power.

The NRA propaganda was taken as reference because those are the arguments most often repeated by people who oppose gun control. If you are more moderate than those 'extremists', I have to wonder why the article makes you react so strongly.

The only reason extremists seem to represent a group is because in their nature as extremists they're willing to go to the extreme to get attention. I am very moderate on the issue of gun control, I believe there are reasonable limits to what people should be allowed to own and limits to what the government is permitted to ban.

My issue is not with gun control, it's with biased media. You propped up an article as a good read with substantive claims, but after reading 20% of it I found myself wading through enough blatant unsupported rhetoric that I wasn't even willing to finish reading the article. When I refuse to finish something that quickly, it's garbage. I once spent a month eating nothing but the foulest tasting premade burger patties in existence simply because I was unwilling to let the food go bad after my idiot roommate bought them. I will read a minimum of 100 pages of any book no matter how horrible it seems, because I don't want to make a snap judgement on something that can take a long time to build momentum. That first section of the article was 4 paragraphs, 3 sentences, and 1 presidential quote but that was all it took for me to lose interest in the article.

The author claims to have studied gun violence in the US for 25 years; I trust he must be very familiar with the statistics.

Being familiar with the numbers and understanding their meaning are two very different things. He's spent 25 years reading politically biased news stories, watching politically biased news channels, and discussing it with friends who hold the same biases on the subject he does. Every time someone accidentally discharges a gun into their own foot it counts as "gun violence" in the U.S. That's a big difference from the mass shootings that prompt these kinds of debates. This is a very wide subject that requires a lot of time spent studying details and defining the severity of events to gain a true understanding of it.

Not to mention he is a University professor, which yes, still means something when it comes to academic research.

His teaching law at Stanford has never seemed to stop him from making unsubstantiated claims before. He's most well known for the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, a hypothesis that states legalized abortion is killing off criminals before they can be born but shrugs it's shoulders at why nations that haven't legalized abortion are seeing similar drops in crime rates. It doesn't try to explain why nations that legalized abortion at different times all started seeing reduced crime rates at about the same time during the 90s either. It would appear that his standard operating procedure is to use rhetoric disguised as academic study to spread his own left-wing opinions.

Showing 1111-1125 of 1127