Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 152. (Read 450482 times)

Yeah, they got you. Without gun freedom in America, they would have you in strait-jackets, too.

The simple fact that you need resource deputies show that there is something wrong with your country man Oo
Thanks for reminding me that, I forgot how incredible it is that you actually need armed people in your school to protect your children xD

Never thought that without guns there wouldn't have been a mass murderer in the first place? At least that's the case in Europe...

You could answer with Columbine (and effectively did), because let's remember, Columbine's resource deputy, Neil Gardner, was off school grounds, which made it safe for the mass murder there for as long as it took him to get back. Security theater coupled with rendering all guardians defenseless (who are implicitly trusted not to harm children anyway), works with brutal consequences.

Oh yeah! Let's make a point by taking one particular event 

I could answer with Columbine but I've got a litle more respect than that.

And I'm talking about statistics. Not saying it's a eutopia, just saying that it's far less shitty than the USA 

Well after a good night of sleep I came back here and... I'm rather amazed.

Added to your globaly incredibly rudeness, some bad faith is leaking from your speach TECShare 

-Sorry again you're not able to think, but "guns make society violent" and "guns allow citizen to protect themselves from their government" are different claims so it's a different debate. If you're not able to understand that... Well just stop answering xD

-Of course it's a claim! I claim that gun control makes society less violent and that Europe is much safer than the USA!!! What do I have to support that claim? Well every stats available on the internet including the ones you showed that you clearly don't understand as you confuse the order of classification but are not even able to bring some common sense here... Doesn't bother you in any way that you're claiming Iceland to be the most dangerous country in the world while every other study in the world places it on the top three of safest countries? Are you so stupid you can't even see that?
http://lifestyle9.org/top-10-safest-countries-to-live-in-the-world/
http://www.valuepenguin.com/2015/07/safest-countries-world
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangerous
http://travel.amerikanki.com/most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.html

Incredible no? The whole internet says THE EXACT CONTRARY of what you're saying! Could it be that you're wrong?

Seem like you think guns = safety. Incredible that you've got the highest murder rate of the civilized world meh?


Well I'm a bit tired of your bad faith. Keep your guns and your 20 mass shootings per year (not exagerating, 200 mass shootings between 2005 and 2015) and I'll keep my stupid/useless/weak/horrible Europe with gun control and our 98 mass shooting since 1800 with a population twice yours.

The only reason this is not already happening in the USA is because we have the right to own guns. This kind of shit would be put down pretty quick in the vast majority of places within the US. You can pretend you live in utopia all you like, but when you look out your window you will still see burning cars and smoke as these riots turn into civil war.

Okay.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/500-migrants-break-in-german-nightclub-and-sexually-assault-women-1322576

Hmm....

Why don't you go prattle this nonsense to those women?

Is it because they'd kick your butt?

Yes, please do be more organized, I am tired of cleaning up your poorly constructed quotes. Stop being so lazy. I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own. Nope, we are still having the same debate, they are not separate issues. You have not proven that "guns makes society more violent", you simply made that claim. Anyone can make a claim. I can claim that your brain is the size of a peanut. Does me making that claim make it a fact? Furthermore there is evidence to demonstrate USAs violent crime rate in areas with high gun ownership is lower than many countries who ban gun ownership by civilians.

"just a matter of preference"

This is also known as YOUR OPINION.

You speak about your home country as if it is a utopia, but does your country have over 300 million people of many different races and cultures that may clash with each other? Do you share a border with one of the most dangerous countries on Earth? No? Then you don't have any right to compare the two nations as if they have the same security requirements, because they don't.





I never used this language, this is completely your fabrication. The right to own firearms was meant as a protection for the citizens from the government. Guns don't give us "control" over our fascist infiltrated government starting wars for bankers and corporate interests, and this is not a claim I ever made. It was a good attempt at completely misrepresenting my point and twisting it into something that serves your argument. Fortunately logic dictates I don't need to defend statements YOU made, only my own.





You clearly don't understand the statistics at all. You made the claim:


Ignoring your incomprehensible mangling of the English language, you appear to be claiming the whole of Europe has lower crime rates than the USA. I responded with statistical evidence that the USA in fact has LOWER overall crime rates than most of Europe where guns are banned, because that was the claim you made.



The reason places like Yemen and India are higher on the list is because NO ONE IS REPORTING CRIME TO THE POLICE. It is kind of difficult to collect unreported crime statistics now is it not? Tell me again who is the "dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone". It even explains this at the top of the list, not that you bothered to read it.

As far as your links to "the safest places in the world", now when I prove that the crime rates are not higher in the USA suddenly now your standard is "the safest" places in the world? Move those goal posts much in between purposely misinterpreting statistics?

Let's put your moving goal posts aside for a minute and examine your argument about the safest nations in the world. If the presence of firearms create violence automatically, why is Switzerland at the bottom of this list of most dangerous countries, with the USA being roughly in the middle? By your logic shouldn't both of those nations be near the top of that list as they have a high percentage of firearm ownership?

http://www.atlasandboots.com/most-dangerous-countries-in-the-world-ranked/



I also noticed you continue to make several fallacious statements in every reply. I will start listing them so you can educate yourself on how actual logic works.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
 

The right to self-defense is infringed to oblivion for law-abiding, mentally-sound, sober people in the US, and you still say that BULLSHIT?!

Yes but you're saying that crimes are not reported in shitty countries... Which already have incredile high crime rates... So they have even higher crime rates from what you explained.

You also need to take into account that the crime rate of the stats is per 1000 habitants, so that it doesn't matter the size of the country.

In case you didn't understand, TECSHare's stats are misleading because it gives the impression that high crime rates are in Iceland and Europe whereas it's a classification so the top countries are the one with the lower crime rate, not the higher.

Just look at any classification of safest countries, Europeans countries are number one

are you okay? I thought it was pretty clearly implied that the actual number of crimes is much higher than the ones shown in the statistics. 'not reported' means not included in the statistics, hence giving the pretense that the crime rate is lower, when in reality, that is untrue.

you also need to take into account that with larger countries comes a larger population, and hence a larger number of people willing to commit crimes. mere statistics can only say so much, your arguments are too narrow minded.

Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^

you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

Ok I'll try to be organized:

-Yes the matter is different. I claim that guns makes the society more violent. You answer me that it allows people to defend themselves from government. Both statement can be true even if one is in favor of gun control and the other is against. I think the first one is more important but that's just a matter of preference.

-Do you think that owning guns make your government under control? Then answer my question, how many wars did the USA start? And how many people did the USA kill? If your government is "under control" then... WTF is a government out of control?

-"Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly?" I did, this is why I say I'm not sure I understand the statistic well... I just try to discuss with you you know? For the stats... Well sorry but I think you read it on the wrong direction. If I listen to what you say, Iceland is the most dangerous place in the world (by far) and India the safest? Look EVERYWHERE else on the internet and you'll see it's the contrary.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangerous
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.html
So I'd say you're the one not understanding your stats. You're really stupid aren't you? ^^
Bring some common sense dude.

For the last part... I didn't take the time to read what a dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone recommended me.

Actually this is still the same debate. Just because the information I presented is counter to your opinion does not magically make it another debate. You can try to say whatever you want, it does not make your opinion fact. The fact is that the statistics show that the US has less crime in general. To compare "violent crime" statistics we would need to do so on a country by country basis because every nations definition of violent crime is not the same. Even in this case in general violent crime is LESS common per-capita in the US than many nations where guns are banned.

Let me ask you this question. How many hundreds of millions of people have out of control governments killed in the last 100 years? Do you believe that the number of homicides by individuals comes even close to that number? This is not just a question of choice, it is a question of examining the facts. You may blindly trust your government, but most of the world doesn't share your viewpoint.




No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.


Additionally you have still not addressed my statistics for defensive use of force that clearly demonstrate guns are preventing more crimes than they are causing. I suppose now you don't trust national surveys endorsed by pro-gun control Harvard scholars now too?

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you...

Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that simply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway.

But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice.


Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo

I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD

Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo

I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD

No matter what the moral standpoint, gun control will end poorly.  Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  If you place laws on who can own and use a gun the criminals will not be stopped because they will not follow those laws.  That means that in the end the only people with the guns will be the police and the criminals with no way for the common person to protect themselves.