In an America with strict gun control....

[ivwshane]

"If"

Are you actually saying that an unarmed person is harder on balance to defeat than an armed person? Is disarming the police part of your plan? The military? Is this real life?

No I'm actually saying your argument. (if one can call it that) is pointless and bears no weight on reality. I'd be all for disarming police of deadly weapons, they have plenty of alternatives. The military? By definition they are armed soldiers. You are the one attempting to make the argument that guns make citizens safer against crime where no facts to support that argument has been presented.

I'm not going to a website to find your argument, present it or don't.

Of course you wouldn't, your ego doesn't allow for you to be wrong. The point I was making and even explained to you, was that your talking point which was essentially, gun free zones are exploited by shooters, was debunked by the link I provided. There is a much higher correlation of the shooter having a connection with their place of target versus ease of killing.

Your quote implies that our federal government is competent, yet you made another thread this very night lamenting the activity of a federal actor. I wasn't here for Bush's tenure but I'd imagine it was much like every other political board on the internet, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Since we're doing this whole quote thing, I bring you this from the father of the United States is:

You missed the point. The point was that anyone can find a quote by anyone that supports their position and relying on a quote as your argument is stupid. Congrats on continuing that stupidity

 

[MagickMan]

You missed the point. The point was that anyone can find a quote by anyone that supports their position and relying on a quote as your argument is stupid. Congrats on continuing that stupidity

You go, Miley. :whiste:

 

[ivwshane]

You go, Miley. :whiste:

Are you trolling? Or purposely trying to derail this topic?

 

[Knowing]

You replied in a quote again. Do you actually expect me to prove that someone with a weapon is more likely to have destructive parity or a destructive advantage over someone who doesn't have a weapon? Isn't that the whole point of having a weapon?

"My ego" Please provide your evidence re: my ego. Also, present your argument or don't. Or, keep trying to shift the burden of proof - your choice.

 

[MagickMan]

Are you trolling? Or purposely trying to derail this topic?

No wai! Tell you what, you stop talking like a drug-addled pop star, without any thought of consequence in simply repealing Constitutional rights, and I'll take you seriously.

 

[ivwshane]

You replied in a quote again. Do you actually expect me to prove that someone with a weapon is more likely to have destructive parity or a destructive advantage over someone who doesn't have a weapon? Isn't that the whole point of having a weapon?

"My ego" Please provide your evidence re: my ego. Also, present your argument or don't. Or, keep trying to shift the burden of proof - your choice.

I'll provide as much evidence as you have which is none. If your argument is so full of common sense then it should be pretty easy for you to prove. Let it be known that in both of your quotes and for this discussion we are not talking about a single solitary incident but rather about society as a whole.

And just incase you forgot, you originally quoted me, so maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[ivwshane]

No wai! Tell you what, you stop talking like a drug-addled pop star, without any thought of consequence in simply repealing Constitutional rights, and I'll take you seriously.

How you take me means nothing to me, your opinion matters that little to me. I just want to know when you will stop trolling and derailing this thread.

 

[MagickMan]

You replied in a quote again. Do you actually expect me to prove that someone with a weapon is more likely to have destructive parity or a destructive advantage over someone who doesn't have a weapon? Isn't that the whole point of having a weapon?

"My ego" Please provide your evidence re: my ego. Also, present your argument or don't. Or, keep trying to shift the burden of proof - your choice.

It's all well and good to ban guns, "think of the children!" Until a gov't inevitably turns on its citizenry and you have nothing with which to defend your home and family, nothing to use to fight back.

The foresight the founding fathers had is tremendous. They knew the country they were just forming would eventually end, and how important it is that its citizens not be left defenseless.

 

[MagickMan]

How you take me means nothing to me, your opinion matters that little to me. I just want to know when you will stop trolling and derailing this thread.

Then you wouldn't have replied in the first place. Yeah... :\

 

[MagickMan]

I'll provide as much evidence as you have which is none. If your argument is so full of common sense then it should be pretty easy for you to prove. Let it be known that in both of your quotes and for this discussion we are not talking about a single solitary incident but rather about society as a whole.

Do you think the USA is immortal, eternal? I don't.

 

[Muse]

how many Americans would be killed in the conflict that would ensue from trying to actually enforce new gun restrictions?

"Pry it from my cold, dead hands" is something that has been thrown out a lot re: guns. If the Government actually decided to enact some kind of strict law that would literally require people to turn in/have confiscated their guns, what does the ensuing conflict look like?

Obama's comments got me thinking. Not sure if this should be P&N or Off Topic, mods please move if appropriate.

Conflict? What conflict? Are you talking about people holing up and shooting it out with law enforcement? Nut jobs can do that, they will do that. So? It would diminish over time.

I just think there's nothing else to be done in America to stop the festering problem. It's only getting worse. Americans on the whole do not have the maturity to deal with firearms proliferation. Just trying to keep them out of the hands of the demonstrably mentally ill is not enough.

 

[Muse]

It's all well and good to ban guns, "think of the children!" Until a gov't inevitably turns on its citizenry and you have nothing with which to defend your home and family, nothing to use to fight back.

The foresight the founding fathers had is tremendous. They knew the country they were just forming would eventually end, and how important it is that its citizens not be left defenseless.

That is a crock.

What is your vision? The country ends (meaning, evidently, the government becomes unstable, ineffectual), then the citizens, having guns in their possession are in a position to survive. Survive what? Barbarians from the north?

 

[Venix]

I just think there's nothing else to be done in America to stop the festering problem. It's only getting worse. Americans on the whole do not have the maturity to deal with firearms proliferation. Just trying to keep them out of the hands of the demonstrably mentally ill is not enough.

Since 1993, the number of firearms in circulation has more than doubled, yet violent crime has dropped by over 50%. Current crime rates are near historic lows.

By what measure is that a "festering problem" that proves Americans lack "the maturity to deal with firearms proliferation?"

 

[MagickMan]

That is a crock.

What is your vision? The country ends (meaning, evidently, the government becomes unstable, ineffectual), then the citizens, having guns in their possession are in a position to survive. Survive what? Barbarians from the north?

To take over and form a new government, that's only possible if the citizenry is armed. Otherwise you're at the mercy of any military faction that can impose a dictatorship. All human societies crumble and if you're unarmed when the shit hits the fan? Well, that's your problem.

 

[MagickMan]

By what measure is that a "festering problem" that proves Americans lack "the maturity to deal with firearms proliferation?"

Guns are "scary".

 

[soundforbjt]

Since 1993, the number of firearms in circulation has more than doubled, yet violent crime has dropped by over 50%. Current crime rates are near historic lows.

By what measure is that a "festering problem" that proves Americans lack "the maturity to deal with firearms proliferation?"

Gun ownership is also at a low despite the large amount of sales. The people who already are owners are the ones buying more guns.

The "festering problem" I think he's referring to is the mass killings that happen frequently here that other countries don't have.

 

[werepossum]

Since 1993, the number of firearms in circulation has more than doubled, yet violent crime has dropped by over 50%. Current crime rates are near historic lows.

By what measure is that a "festering problem" that proves Americans lack "the maturity to deal with firearms proliferation?"

By the measure hard-wired into the idiocracy, that you don't need any sort of power.

Gun ownership is also at a low despite the large amount of sales. The people who already are owners are the ones buying more guns.

The "festering problem" I think he's referring to is the mass killings that happen frequently here that other countries don't have.

Or option C: Fewer and fewer people are willing to admit even to a survey that they have a gun. You never know what list that puts you on.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually I do think they're factually correct. If an armed man could be attacked with the same confidence as an unarmed one, then why hasn't there been a spree killing at a gun show? Also, historically I'm fairly certain that the ruling class has generally been armed, and the plowing class not.

If you've got some clever phrases in favor of gun control I'd love to read them. I'd even give you props if you could find one that wasn't trivial to defeat and that I hadn't heard before.

How about that the idea that gun control disarms only those not inclined to commit crimes is a dubious one without factual support?

That was easy. Talk about an argument that is trivial to defeat, haha.

As for an argument in favor of gun control: gun ownership is strongly positively correlated with increased levels of suicide. Now go!

 

[glenn1]

How about that the idea that gun control disarms only those not inclined to commit crimes is a dubious one without factual support?

That was easy. Talk about an argument that is trivial to defeat, haha.

As for an argument in favor of gun control: gun ownership is strongly positively correlated with increased levels of suicide. Now go!

Having gay sex is strongly positively correlated with getting HIV/AIDS, do you plan to use your same "logic" to support homosexual control?

 

[momeNt]

Having gay sex is strongly positively correlated with getting HIV/AIDS, do you plan to use your same "logic" to support homosexual control?

HIV/AIDs is treatable. Can't treat suicide, only prevent it. So yea, cough up the guns, but if you like your buttsex, you can keep it.

 

[momeNt]

I know Americans have absolutely lost the backbone to go prohibition era and start bootlegging guns and whatnot. Quite frankly, I think natural Americans, born and raised in America, never did have the backbone, which is why most of that work went to immigrants.

Looking at it from today's perspective of strict gun control, I think the biggest problem with that is Mexico. The opportunity for illegal gun trade with a relatively docile populace would be too appealing to pass up.

I'll entertain the idea of strict gun control in America as soon as we can secure our borders and the police force needs to be further militarized, otherwise I think we'll just have another prohibition on our hands.

 

[BxgJ]

I know Americans have absolutely lost the backbone to go prohibition era and start bootlegging guns and whatnot. Quite frankly, I think natural Americans, born and raised in America, never did have the backbone, which is why most of that work went to immigrants.

Looking at it from today's perspective of strict gun control, I think the biggest problem with that is Mexico. The opportunity for illegal gun trade with a relatively docile populace would be too appealing to pass up.

I'll entertain the idea of strict gun control in America as soon as we can secure our borders and the police force needs to be further militarized, otherwise I think we'll just have another prohibition on our hands.

That is definitely not something we need.

 

[blankslate]

The government broke treaty after treaty with the Native American people. The purpose is to show that too much trust in the government is unfounded. Your analysis game is weak.

You're the one with the weak analysis. Even armed and organized the natives of this continent didn't fair well. So when a militarized Swat team goes into a house to arrest someone for something and they brandish anything that looks like a weapon we can expect that they won't fair well either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.html


http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/70833...-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs

The ACLU analysis found at least seven civilian deaths in the 818 SWAT reports they analyzed. In two of those cases, the suspect appeared to have committed suicide to avoid being taken by police. Forty-six civilians were injured. It's not clear whether any of these incidents were investigated by a prosecutor or the police department, or whether any of the officers were disciplined.

Other analyses have turned up more cases of civilian injuries; a 2006 Cato Institute paper by Radley Balko collects cases of SWAT raids gone wrong throughout history.

For family members of loved ones killed or injured during these raids, it can be very difficult to find justice. (For a more in-depth look at the legal latitude police have to use force against civilians, read this explanation of when it's legal for a cop to shoot you.)

Here is a piece on the militarization of the police in satire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A&t=6m25s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
^Civil forfeiture.

The question is which elected officials would want to reverse those situations?



.....

 

[glenn1]

You're the one with the weak analysis. Even armed and organized the natives of this continent didn't fair well. So when a militarized Swat team goes into a house to arrest someone for something and they brandish anything that looks like a weapon we can expect that they won't fair well either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.html


http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/70833...-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs



Here is a piece on the militarization of the police in satire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A&t=6m25s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
^Civil forfeiture.

The question is which elected officials would want to reverse those situations?



.....

So the latest two arguments are that others should give up rights to be safer from suicide and death by cop. Leaving aside the fact that rights aren't guaranteed safe to exercise (ask in the Middle East about freedom of speech or religion) and sometimes may alarm others who witness them being exercised, are you really suggesting that we should cede rights for safety and/or peace of mind?

 

[jackstar7]

I thought you owned the guns for safety...