Anti-2nd-amendment education bill could be approved any day now

[yen]

How many gun crimes in America, in any given year, are committed by licensed gun owners?

You see, law-abiding folks are the ones who get licenses, and are the only ones who you can anticipate obeying any laws that ban firearms. However, the statistics already in existence prove that those law-abiding, license gun owners are not the ones committing the gun crimes.

Most crimes are commited by stolen weapons from those owners though. Basically, the way things are now give easy access to anyone.

 

[platzapS]

I'm not sure where I stand on gun control. I believe that guns, if legal, should require major registrations and background checks.

The argument about banning cars as they can be used as weapons is invalid. The practical uses of cars as means of transportation far outweighs any dangers of car accidents/rammings. The practicle uses of guns are to threaten, maim, or kill.

 

[Susan]

I'm not sure where I stand on gun control. I believe that guns, if legal, should require major registrations and background checks.

The argument about banning cars as they can be used as weapons is invalid. The practical uses of cars as means of transportation far outweighs any dangers of car accidents/rammings. The practicle uses of guns are to threaten, maim, or kill.

Agreed. I personally see firearms as a threat to freedom rather than a defense of it.

If you want to see what I mean by this, look at Afghanistan and immediate postwar Iraq. If being allowed to own any kind of firearm with as little restriction as possible actually provided for more safety and freedom, those places would be the perfect examples of it.

Instead, both countries are cauldrons of instability and violence because they are ruled by the firearms. The person/group with the AK-47 initimidates or kills the person/group with the manual-loading rifle, the person/group with the rocket propelled grenade launcher intimidates or kills the AK-47 owner(s), and so it goes. Power goes to the one who has the most ammunition and the coldest blood.

I believe that strict control of firearms provides freedoms and protects the innocent.

 

[yen]

I especially see firearms as a threat. Other industrialized countries that do not allow weapons, or have strict control, have a SIGNIFICANT amount of lesser deaths than the US.

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Some of you think that placing restrictions on guns won't decrease your gun related deaths, despite it having worked in pretty much every other country. What do you think will work then? Why is it you think that other countries are much lower than you? What do you think they are doing that your not?

 

[Philosoft]

then there's philosoft. HE'S obviously not pro-gun. so there's 3!

Great horny toads. You are exceedingly bad at this debate stuff. Go back and try to find some place, any place, on this thread where I made public my position on gun laws. Good luck.

since 3 of 5 people were anti-gun, that would mean MAJORITY were anti-gun!!! what more evidence do you want?

I'm not "anti-gun," I'm anti-bad-argument. There might be at least one reasonable rhetorical defense of legal firearms, but the idea that we can all pick up our Glock 9s and take on the military ain't one of them.

-what do you mean i "ignored" them? i was supposed to pick apart every single post by every single respondent in this thread and try to disprove it?

In all fairness, I didn't expect a reply from you. Your mischaracterization of my argument was egregious enough that there really wasn't anything to say in your own defense.

i'm not as insane as you must think...

Must. Not. Comment.

-thank you for showing us your excellence in vocabulary by borrowing philosoft's term. <strokes beard and agrees>

I think it's safe to say Brim knew what a strawman was before I ambled along. Implicity insulting his intelligence doesn't get you any style points, by the way.

 

[Brimshack]

Don't worry about a long response from me Chip. Too many of your arguments amount to basic reading errors, and so there is no percentage in contuing the discussion.

 

[chipdouglas]

all right... although what i read in your first few posts led me to believe that you were anti-gun, maybe i jumped the gun a little bit. however, is it too crazy to think it possible, since you were debating against somebody who is pro-gun on the gun topic, that YOU were anti-gun?

given that information, why is it so hard to believe that somebody would get the feeling that somebody, arguing against someone else who is pro-gun on the gun topic, is... oh, i don't know... possibly anti-gun? i know that was redundant but it's an important point. and maybe i was wrong. maybe you're not anti-gun. but then again, maybe you are. maybe i was right. ARE YOU? what side are you on? i'd just like to see if i was right about your position. for or against?

the real point here is... well the real point was mentioned already. i would just like to say that i don't feel my conclusion was unwarranted or inane, but rather perfectly sane and logical, something any intelligent person might have assumed. whether or not they would have put it in the words i did is a different matter.

to platzapS, i know the automobile analogy wasn't perfect. i do agree with you when you say that cars are lower risk than guns, BUT... the reason the "flaw" you pointed out isn't really a flaw... does the fact that one outweighs the other mean "the other" should be illegal? i don't think so. but you're not proving my analogy "wrong" or irrelevant or invalid. you got the point didn't you? something shouldn't be banned just because risk is involved or on account of the fact that some people misuse things.

back to philosoft...

the self righteousness:

Implicity insulting his intelligence doesn't get you any style points

the hypocrisy:

insult # 1:

Must. Not. Comment.

that was in reply to me saying, "i'm not as insane as you must think". here's the next cold hard truth:

insult # 2:

You are exceedingly bad at this debate stuff

YEAH! i give you 1,000 style points for that one! 500 for the last one, that puts you at 1,500 on the day! i know much of my argument against brimshack contained unnecessary and irrelevant attacks. HOWEVER, DO NOT lecture me on it and turn around and do it yourself. you just joined this 3-man club of unnecessary attacks . ignore everything but my first couple of paragraphs. that was the gist of my rebuttal. the others were examples of what i was just talking about BUT i did not lecture anyone on necessity...

to brimshack...

Don't worry about a long response from me Chip. Too many of your arguments amount to basic reading errors, and so there is no percentage in contuing the discussion.

you're right about one thing: there is no point in continuing this. where you're wrong is that too many of my arguments amount to basic reading errors. the real problem here is all logical conclusions i drew, all logical assumptions and implications made were refuted because i didn't say THE EXACT phrase. for example (and i know you didn't do this, but), it's like somebody saying "i started a gun-burning club to rid the earth of guns" and me concluding that you're probably anti-gun. after stating my conclusion, i get much protest because these people didn't say EXACTLY what i translated it as. just understand, i felt at the time and still do that the conclusions i drew were very logical and very clear. i can't imagine that we could differ there. anyway, i know i said i wouldn't respond, but look at it this way: i only wrote a paragraph and didn't spend much time anyway. unfortunately, no minds were budged i'm sure. sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[stray bullet]

I said nothing about desires. There are very few people who earnestly want to kill other people. All I am saying is that guns base use is killing.

You said guns were for killing, which is not true. People buy guns for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of which aren't used for or purchased for the purpose of killing people. The police carry and USE guns all the time (pointing at suspect) without killing anyone. Therefore it's absurd to say guns are for killing people. I

You are confusing defenseless and gunless I think. Can you not defend yourself without shooting or killing the offender?

No, I'm not confusing defenseless and gunless. And yes, you can easily defend yourself without shooting anyone... WITH a gun. Just the risk of an armed populace provides a first defense. The next one comes from pointing your gun at the intruder and demanding they surrender.

 

[stray bullet]

It is statistically proven that the countries who do not allow their citizens to carry guns have had a lot less crime and casualties. I can get the stats tomorrow, but it's 2 am and I have an early day to morrow.

Actually, you have it backwards, more guns reduce crime. There really is no logical explanation for a claim that fewer guns mean less crime, unless you mean, fewer guns mean less GUN crimes. Taking guns away from the civilian population, while the police and criminals have guns doesn't seem to have a logical means of reducing crime. I guess one could expect criminals to stop breaking the law because it's too easy.

 

[stray bullet]

I especially see firearms as a threat. Other industrialized countries that do not allow weapons, or have strict control, have a SIGNIFICANT amount of lesser deaths than the US.



Some of you think that placing restrictions on guns won't decrease your gun related deaths, despite it having worked in pretty much every other country. What do you think will work then? Why is it you think that other countries are much lower than you? What do you think they are doing that your not?

And countries that have fewer cars per capita also have less vehicular homocide.

United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26

And how many people in Brazil and Mexico have or can afford a gun? I find that alarming. What's it's basically saying it that gun control doesn't work well in those countries.
What's interesting, if you actually look at crime in the US, outside of urban pockets of poverty and crime, the US often has crime rates similar or lower than their European counterparts.

The biggest way to stop gun crime and crime in general is to fight poverty, not stop peaceable citizens from keeping and bearing arms. However, knee-jerk legislation is always easier than addressing complex problems.