Are You For Or Against Guns?

[DroPouT1999]

Because murdering an animal in cold blood isn't wrong? I like bacon as much as the next guy but I won't slaughter pigs for "fun."

I don't mean for fun but you need meat for survival.

[cae]

No. Firearms are designed to kill or injure. The recoil before putting more rounds down field, the shattering of a bullet on impact, hollow points, full metal jackets. I mean honestly, are you really going to tell me that guns arnt designed with the express intent on killing or injuring another person or thing??

Saying a gun just fires projectiles is like me saying that a howitzer does the same . Saying a gun just fires accurate projectiles is like saying the same for a cruise missile.

 

I thought I laid it out pretty clear. Yes, I'm honestly, seriously, totes mcgotes saying that a firearm just fires projectiles. Edit: some also function as bottle openers and other neat devices!

 

If their "intent" is to kill or injure, why are they so poorly engineered in that regard? We have sooo many guns, why do so few of them do what they're "intended" to do? All of mine have never killed or injured anything. Are they defective? Should I RMA them?  :lol:

[Blade of Grass]

Yes. Do you know the difference between a sound argument and a logical fallacy?

Logical fallacies are not nessesarily incorrect

(this is not in answer of your question)

[minimalist]

Every human being should have a gun.  Every human being should be trained how to use a gun.  End of story.  Gun violence would instantly drop if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it.

[Blade of Grass]

I thought I laid it out pretty clear. Yes, I'm honestly, seriously, totes mcgotes saying that a firearm just fires projectiles. Edit: some also function as bottle openers and other neat devices!

If their "intent" is to kill or injure, why are they so poorly engineered in that regard? We have sooo many guns, why do so few of them do what they're "intended" to do? All of mine have never killed or injured anything. Are they defective? Should I RMA them? :lol:

Well I see exactly what you're saying, and kind of agree, you also have to look at what they were designed for.

Sure, you can fill your car with dirt and plant flowers in it, but whether that was the designed use of the car is another question. Right?

[Blade of Grass]

Every human being should have a gun. Every human being should be trained how to use a gun. End of story. Gun violence would instantly drop if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it.

As it would drop if no one had one

[cae]

Well I see exactly what you're saying, and kind of agree, you also have to look at what they were designed for.

Sure, you can fill your car with dirt and plant flowers in it, but whether that was the designed use of the car is another question. Right?

 

I still maintain that a firearm just fires projectiles. You could certainly make a case for different types of ammunition having specific intended uses. There are blanks, Simunition and other non-lethal rounds, FMJ, JHP, AP, tracers, incendiary, etc. Humans have to give that tool a purpose, and that purpose can change in different scenarios. My 10/22 is great for just plinkin' cans out in the desert, but if I needed it to I could repurpose it as a (very) small game hunting rifle, or heavens forbid a self-defense rifle. In the hands of an evil person, it may serve them in an assault.

[Guest Kloaked]

As it would drop if no one had one

 

We're still coming back to the point of criminals having unregistered guns, and criminals not following laws.

 

Again.

[minimalist]

As it would drop if no one had one

 

Well that's a fairytale.  If you think all guns will be removed from people.....keep dreaming!!!

[mr moose]

That whole last sentence there is a lie. In Australia gun deaths wen't up from criminals breaking into their house and shooting them. 

Bull shit.  Why do you guys have to make ups so much bullshit to support your cause.  I am not against guns but I will not bend statistics to prove a rubbish point.

 

Gun deaths in Australia have dropped since the ban:

 

Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.^[25] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."

 

 

 

Before you spout rubbish learn to look up the facts.

[mr moose]

Yes. Do you know the difference between a sound argument and a logical fallacy?

 

So a legitimate statistic is a logical fallacy if it upsets your ideals? 

 

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it a fallacy.

[cae]

So a legitimate statistic is a logical fallacy if it upsets your ideals? 

 

This is what you wrote:

 

Well,  statistically speaking it is not about absolutes but about rates.  There will always be guns, but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact.  So all my questions are not to prove anything other than to get people to think about prevalence and the effect that has on outcomes. If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29.  Given that majority of people don't shop on the black market that will significantly impact gun related deaths. 

 

The classic example is Australia with 1.06 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, and the USA is 10.4.  That's tens times higher.  In fact if you look at any country with loose gun control you can see that the gun related death rate is significantly higher than countries with gun control.

 

I bolded the problems for you. It's not about ideals, it's about presenting an incorrect statement as fact. I'll let the "gun related death" bits slide because I think we've addressed that point enough already.

[LOLPhilips]

Yarrrrrr,

 

What is this ye be talking 'bout.

What be life without me musket.

Boring that it would be.

[mr moose]

This is what you wrote:

 

 

 

I bolded the problems for you. It's not about ideals, it's about presenting an incorrect statement as fact. I'll let the "gun related death" bits slide because I think we've addressed that point enough already.

 

There will always be guns, but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact.  So all my questions are not to prove anything other than to get people to think about prevalence and the effect that has on outcomes.

 

 

This sentence in context,  I said: "there will always be guns" which everyone seemed to either miss or just ignore because it was inconvenient.

 

Then I said: "but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact." 

 

This is a cold hard fact, if you make them illegal you will drop the number of guns in the community, this sentence is consistent with other countries that have carried out bans on guns including the gun related death statistics.

 

I also said "If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29" which I have already explained was an example to illustrate a statistical concept.

 

 

It really is a simple concept, but it seems people are allowing their ideals to interfere with rational thought.

 

EDIT: at no point in any of my posts did I say that guns would be completely removed from the community. That i think is were some people are getting confused.

[mr moose]

Kid the cartels will bring them in form any where they can get them... you don't under stand.

 

If you think cartels can import more guns than can currently be legally sold in America you have a terribly naive understanding of social sciences.

 

EDIT: I just realised this guy has been banned, but I am not surprised, if you make up statistics and then call everyone else stupid clowns then you probably don't understand the COC either.

[cae]

This sentence in context,  I said: "there will always be guns" which everyone seemed to either miss or just ignore because it was inconvenient.

 

Then I said: "but if you remove legality of them , then the shear number of guns in the community drop, and by extension so does the number of gun related deaths.  This is not an opinion it is a cold hard fact." 

 

This is a cold hard fact, if you make them illegal you will drop the number of guns in the community, this sentence is consistent with other countries that have carried out bans on guns including the gun related death statistics.

 

I also said "If there are 89 guns per 100 people in America and 60 are made illegal, then the prevalence of guns in the community drops to 29" which I have already explained was an example to illustrate a statistical concept.

 

 

It really is a simple concept, but it seems people are allowing their ideals to interfere with rational thought.

 

EDIT: at no point in any of my posts did I say that guns would be completely removed from the community. That i think is were some people are getting confused.

 

The counter example provided was the recent NY bans. Certain guns were made illegal, yet many of those guns remain in the hands of their owners.

[mr moose]

The counter example provided was the recent NY bans. Certain guns were made illegal, yet many of those guns remain in the hands of their owners.

Exactly, many did but not ALL gun owners kept their guns. Some handed in their weapons and some may even have gone to a black market to replace their gun with a non traceable one. however the result was the same, the number of guns dropped. 

 

You see I am not arguing that guns are bad or any of that, I stated my opinion many pages ago, but it seems people are ignoring the facts and bending the realities to suit an ideal.

[Markova]

I'm a bit weird because I'm from a country that was at war when I was a child. I LOVE firearms and weapons and I used to practice shooting with different rifles and stuff and I love the mechanical things mankind has produced for war. BUT I don't think people should have guns. not in private. A state has to have guns or protectors with guns to be autonome but a person with a gun is not positive in my eyes. And the people who are allowed to carry weapons at their job  (policemen, soldiers) should be under a better controll and the guns should be locked away when not on duty. we are people, we always use tools and weapons to survive. they are a part of us that has to be handled with care.

[cae]

Exactly, many did but not ALL gun owners kept their guns. Some handed in their weapons and some may even have gone to a black market to replace their gun with a non traceable one. however the result was the same, the number of guns dropped. 

 

You see I am not arguing that guns are bad or any of that, I stated my opinion many pages ago, but it seems people are ignoring the facts and bending the realities to suit an ideal.

 

Okay, this doesn't reflect the statement about taking a certain number of guns away by making them illegal. You admit it's not a 1:1 ratio for banned guns to guns removed from circulation, at least in the US. So presenting the previous concept in numbers as cold hard fact was what disturbed us.

[mr moose]

Okay, this doesn't reflect the statement about taking a certain number of guns away by making them illegal. You admit it's not a 1:1 ratio for banned guns to guns removed from circulation, at least in the US. So presenting the previous concept in numbers as cold hard fact was what disturbed us.

 

I understand that, the problem is that I didn't say that the 89/100 to 29/100 figures were cold hard facts ( that was an illustration and it's hard to illustrate a mathematical concept without using an example).

 

I did however say that a making firearms illegal reduces the prevalence and that the reduced prevalence is reflected in gun death statistics. -this is a hard fact.

 

The question people should be asking is why?  why are the figures this way? is there a cultural significance? is their a population significance? is it something in the water?  It could be correlation or it could be causation, My issue is that people are fighting the facts and listening to lobby groups that (as far as I am concerned) outright lie, ignoring some statistics and bending others to prove their point.  (happens on both sides of the debate).

[cae]

The figures are that way because they are obvious. You take guns away, they can no longer be used in crime. They are presented to make a (very poor) case for confiscation or to demonize a firearm, but are ultimately pointless in relation to the US because the individual's right to own a firearm is constitutionally protected.

[JustTooDank]

I don't understand how some people here can see what the government has been attempting as far as net neutrality, and think it's okay for them to be the only armed people trusted to protect us.

We live in a country of roughly 313,900,000 (legal) people. There are enough guns for roughly 279,371,000 million of them.

11,000 gun related deaths is almost a statistical anomaly at that point. And the large majority of those deaths are gang related. The nut job that shoots up a school is even more rare than that. But it's what the media pays attention to. And when they parade the same story for weeks at a time, until it happens again, it makes it seem like mass murders are commonplace, when really they're not.

[Lyons]

Why should they be outlawed in homes? That's where a vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. keep them for self defense. Firing ranges aren't all that common either. So keeping your gun at a firing range is impractical. Technically they are outlawed on the street unless you are a police officer or have a license to carry...

Sorry, but I don't think the 'guns to defend yourself from guns' is a valid arguement.

[Guest]

Just a friendly reminder to keep this thread clean and respectful. 

 

I'll be watching this thread.

If you could please give an example of a unclean or disrespectful post so people could avoid them. Simply saying "i'll be watching this thread" on a perfectly valid and current issue isn't elaborating. Please explain.

[cae]

If you could please give an example of a unclean or disrespectful post so people could avoid them. Simply saying "i'll be watching this thread" on a perfectly valid and current issue isn't elaborating. Please explain.

 

I (and probably others) reported that Corsair fellow (not the funny pirate guy) for some rude posts and they were deleted. Why there's no disrespectful posts anymore.