Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 151. (Read 450471 times)

Ok on this one I absolutely didn't understand what you meant at first. So please accept my apologies here for not understanding this argument. Seems like my non-fluent English level led me to misunderstanding your point, which is valid.

Oh, sorry I didn't take the time to add your name and post number above my quote, guess it totally changes the fact that you're wrong...


TECShare... I don't have the nergy to fight your bad faith. You're just playing on words and you know it. Facts are here:
-Number of mass shootings in the US: http://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page
-number of homicides per million: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

So you have the fight to take any part of my speach and explaining how it is not perfect. But what you're claiming is "guns allow us to protect ourselves from bad guys with guns", seems like you don't understand that if guns are correctly controlled, no one have guns. And that's why the US murder rate per million is in the midle of Nigeria and Lybia.

For the part about government... It is, again, a question of faith and trust in your government. You got the right to feel the need to protect yourself against your government, but again, that's another debate.
My claim: "Gun freedom makes society more violent and more dangerous"
Your answer "Gun freedom allows the people to protect themselves against their government"

The two claims are compatible. Not the same debate. And as I answered previously, owning guns in case of a dictatorial government would only lead to huge civil war so I don't think you can call that safe.

He is too lazy to learn how logic or even how the English language works, why would he quote properly?




I am sorry you find facts rude. Please do quote my rude comments. I will quote your rude comments and ad-hominem attacks for reference.




Please feel free to list my personal attacks against yourself. Personal attacks are another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem


If I am stating anything in bad faith, please do quote exactly the statement you are referring to and tell me why it is in bad faith, otherwise you are just slinging empty accusations. You also keep making statements that you claim I made based on YOUR OWN inept interpretations of statistics I have produced to refute actual statements you have made.

Making statements up and claiming that they are arguments I made is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Anyone can make baseless claims. I claim your left leg is a foot shorter than your right leg, your hair is purple, and that you eat birch bark for breakfast. Now that I made that claim does it mean it is valid? Claims require supporting evidence, of which you have provided NONE. You provide lists of "the safest" nations on the Earth and just claim they correlate with gun control. There is no evidence these lists have anything to do with gun ownership.

Correlation does not equal causation. This is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause



Your argument is that the availability of guns is a greater danger than not having guns available. I provided evidence of direct circumstances where an unarmed population is put in danger by NOT owning firearms, therefore this is in fact the same debate.

Cherry picking your arguments is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter



I never made that claim, you made that claim. In fact I explained why nations that are safe might also have an overall high crime rate, because crime rates include ALL CRIME, not just violent crime.

Making statements and claiming that I made them is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman



Just because you can find a preponderance of writings that agree with your opinions does not mean they are based on facts and empirical data.

Claiming that many people agree with your argument automatically makes it valid is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon




Again, please do quote any statement I made that you can prove to be false and provide evidence to refute it. You might want to double check where you get your stats about "20 mass shootings a year". There are groups who qualify any instance of a firearm injuring (not killing) 2 or more people as a mass shooting. Additionally by those same metrics a person who shoots his wife, then kills himself is counted as a mass shooting. You have zero ability to scientifically examine the information you blindly believe for the underlying empirical data, and treat any words you come across that support your bias as truth, and then you have the nerve to call me stupid for disagreeing with you (while you fail to provide reliable counter evidence by the way).

Your claim that because something supposedly works in Europe, it must also work in the USA is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division


Here is a basic tutorial on logic. You need it. Please review it before ever again attempting to engage in what you believe to be a debate.

http://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text/c01_3-99.pdf

Gah, why can't stalkers quote me properly...

Well, you cannot substantiate "totally crazy."  It's okay that you feel that way, I am simply indicating that those are just your opinions - they are not facts.  You may be frankly, fearful of something you don't understand.  Something you have been told is fearful.  I do know people like that.   

However, there is ZERO crazy or fearful about some number of licensed persons walking around carrying firearms.  Zero.

I get the impression you live in a very cloistered, urban environment.  Never been to a range and fired any kind of firearm.  Don't know how they work or what actual dangers they post.  You have never been close to a roaming bear.  Never been surprised by a poisonous snake a few feet away.  Never been hunting.  Never gotten lost driving, found yourself in a neighborhood that you knew was seriously dangerous. 

That's my impression.   That you would like to expound on a subject that you don't know anything about.

Nothing wrong with that, really.  But it's extraordinary that you would claim authority to tell others how they should live their lives, on a subject you don't know anything about.

LOL...

I don't see the link with what you quoted...

But glad you went in a restaurant. And glad nothing happenned in your restaurant.

But I wouldn't bring my family somewhere 5 people have concealed weapons... Totally crazy country xD
(crazy for a European, don't get it wrong here)


Nope. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

UK got less violent crimes than USA. Don't know where your number came from.

Your revisionist history to defend the indefensible violation of human rights, resulting in 3.31001528944831x more violent crimes per capita in the UK than the US (sources: Eurostat and the FBI's UCR, 2011), is duly noted. /ignore

im from britain so i find the amount of guns in america shocking, i think it needs to be reigned it because ive read about several high school massacres involving guns in america and we are yet to have one. its just my opinion but the rest of the world manage to 'protect their property' without such dangerous weapons

You've gutted logic to advance opinion.

Last night I had dinner in a restaurant with perhaps 200-300 people.  There was an armed security guard, likely ex marine or special forces.  There were no doubt four or five people in that restaurant with concealed carry weapons.  It was a nice place.  A place you'd bring your family to.

That's the USA in a nutshell.

Well, now. You're finally starting to see. What's the difference between a soldier or a cop, and a civilian? Almost nothing. About all it is, is some training and some guns.

Did you ever look at the word "militia?" What word does it look like? "Military" of course. And in the beginning of the United States, the militia was made up of the people, and the military was made up of the militia. It is still like this in Switzerland somewhat. In America, somebody, over the years, talked the people into being wimps, and letting someone else protect them.

By Constitution we are not supposed to have a military in times of peace. Guess what we have? A military. Since we have a military, we are not at peace. If we need to be at war, let us all arm and be at war. If we did this, we wouldn't need cops, and the formal military could go to other countries, while the people back home would be the militia. That's the way it is supposed to be in America.

There are a bunch of pussies who don't want to stand up for themselves, and a bunch of con-artists sweet-talking them into weakness.

You better be glad America is as strong as it is, and that it has gun freedom. American gun freedom and the strength are the only two things keeping the world somewhat free. Why? Because foreign governments are afraid to take away too much freedom because of what their citizen-slaves-to-be will learn from America about freedom.

I understand and respect your point of view. But you seem to forget one thing: no matter the example you take, shall it be Hitler, Staline or Polpot, the population had the chance to change things before it became a dictatorship.

Police officers and soldiers are part of the population too. One can not simply take over a country without the support of the population. Germany and Sovietic Russia or Mao China were horrible yes, but the three leader had a lot of support from their more or less brainwashed population.

So guns wouldn't matter here, if people had guns, they wouldn't have turned them against their government.

You see, I perticulary understand what you're saying as France is becoming closer and closer to a dictatorship.... First minister announced that the State of Emergency, giving much more power to the government (a bit like the Patriot Act which is something unbelievable here in France) will go on for a few month more, whereas the ending date was February.
But the fact is that... Even if we all had gun it wouldn't change a thing! Because most of people agree with the State of Emergency! So they wouldn't fight the government but support it!

As you said, an armed population in case of a huge governmental crisis leads to civil war. I prefer to believe in the democratic principles, saying that if more than half of the population wants it, they have the right to do it.

When policy-makers can rely exclusively on a monopolization of force, the policies they make tend to leverage this advantage eventually.  One need not be a raving paranoid to look with discomfort at a society which is rapidly expanding a heavily armed domestic paramilitary while simultaneously dis-arming civilians as fast as possible in spite of the social strain that the project entails and the statistically insignificant nature of problems that the action claims to address.

I, for one, do not believe in the 'American exceptionalism' and certainly not that such a thing gives us a magic shield against the types of misfortune that have befallen the Soviets under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pot, etc.  For my part, if I had to choose between a civil war and a totalitarian dictatorship, I would consider the first to be the lesser of two evils and a tunnel which has light at it's end.  A realistic balance of power seems to me the best way to avoid having to make that choice at all.

And in a more here-and-now sort of a way, communities like mine are kept remarkably peaceful by citizens having the ability to protect themselves.  The minimal levels of state sponsored law enforcement serve a back-office function of dealing with criminals when time is not a factor while the front-line duties are handled quite effectively by law abiding citizens.  It is very efficient and works quite well.

Well if soldiers and cops don't have guns... They're useless, a soldier without a weapon has no reason to be called a soldier. Just get them out.

There might also be a middle between "everyone can  buy an AK-47" and "no one can be armed, not even soldiers"...

Why do cops and soldiers need to be armed with guns? I thought the whole idea was to feel safer. I feel a lot safer when we don't have anyone running around with guns.

All you need to do is look at what Stalin and Mao and Hitler did to their own people who didn't have guns. And what about Pol Pot and many others?

I would certainly rather have a fighting chance than not.

Of course cops and soldiers must be armed dude...

And yes I see all the cops brutality in America... And I think (think, just an opinion here) that it's also deeply linked to gun freedom. Cops are more violent cause they feel less safer which I understand. How can a cop feel safe doing his job when every citizen might have a glock...

How are you going to force the guns out of the hands of the bad guys? You are going to use guns, right?

I suppose a mob of unarmed cops could rush a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of the cops might get killed. But they finally could wrestle the gun away from him.

If the cops are armed... well just look at all the police brutality in America alone. Google it... "police brutality" and see how many millions of hits you get. They can't all be criminals posting this stuff. So, if the police have guns, and nobody else has guns, the bad guys still have guns.

With all the guns around, and with all the knowledge about how to make guns, you will never disarm the world completely. The best bet is to arm us all so that we can protect ourselves from everyone, including the bad cops.

I agree. And imagine you get robbed: the guy has a gun, so what? You're going to pull out your gun too?

and sorry about the argument "bad guys always have a gun" well... No... With good gun control you gonna see so much less armed robbery!

in my opinion, i prefer the citizens not allowed to own gun

because a lot of accident has occured because of the gun, there is a teenager stealing her father's gun and then shoot somebody

there is a gang robbery using gun, so i dont see any of advantage of owning a gun

That's not an answer. I don't see the link between Holocausts and gun control...

Another Holocaust/democide (prerequisite: gun control) denier, I see. /ignore