Author

Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 200. (Read 450551 times)

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 10:11:16 AM
#96
Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied.
Okay that's a fair criticism. I apologize, my posts are very rarely complete when I first publish them, I often do 2-3 minutes of editing to get them just how I want, it's quasi-OCD.

Thats why the preview button is there.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 10:10:34 AM
#95
Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied.
Okay that's a fair criticism. I apologize, my posts are very rarely complete when I first publish them, I often do 2-3 minutes of editing to get them just how I want, it's quasi-OCD.

Of course this changes nothing about the data (facts) of this debate.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 10:09:03 AM
#94
Usually, most intelligent people would conclude that the UK has a much lower population than the US, and thus cite statistics that are adjusted per capita, but you know better than that! Your cited chart is not adjusted for the population differences between the two nations.
Read the left side of the chart. WARNING: At your IQ, you may need to tilt your head so your brain can process the information properly.

chart added after the fact

source: OECD, http://kieranhealy.org


Gee, I guess I didn't see that the first time considering you added it after I replied. Also, a URL on the chart is NOT a source. A link to the study it came from is a source.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 10:08:23 AM
#93
Usually, most intelligent people would conclude that the UK has a much lower population than the US, and thus cite statistics that are adjusted per capita, but you know better than that! Your cited chart is not adjusted for the population differences between the two nations.
Read the left side of the chart. WARNING: At your IQ, you may need to tilt your head to the left so your brain can process the information properly.



source 1: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
source 2: OECD, http://kieranhealy.org
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 10:04:18 AM
#92
Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.
It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.
Also more violent crime in general.
Not even close. First of all it's an apples to oranges comparison because england is the size of New Jersey, but yeah you could take 2 or 3 major us cities and have far more violence than all of the UK.

chart

Usually, most intelligent people would conclude that the UK has a much lower population than the US, and thus cite statistics that are adjusted per capita, but you know better than that! Your cited chart is not adjusted for the population differences between the two nations. The US has about 5x as many people in it, OF COURSE the crime rate is going to be higher if not adjusted per capita. This is just another example of how you present misleading and disingenuous statistics to support your failing argument. I see why you stick to parroting other people and posting pictures, that way you don't have to defend your flawed beliefs when challenged.

P.S. try sourcing your data not just posting random unsourced charts. Also I like your after the fact editing.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 09:55:34 AM
#91
Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.
It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.
Also more violent crime in general.
Not even close. First of all it's an apples to oranges comparison because England is tiny compared to the USA. You could take 2 or 3 of the most violent major us cities and have far more violence than all of the UK.



The data clearly shows that as gun ownership has been declining, violent crime and death has also declined.







That's England, roughly the size of one US state. 53 million people, the entire UK is 64 million people, the USA has ~320 million people.

Also, you should read this http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 09:44:28 AM
#90
Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.
It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.
Also more violent crime in general.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1123
June 20, 2015, 09:38:07 AM
#89
Because if a criminal wants a gun they are going to get it, law or no law. If the criminal has a gun I want one too.
It's much, much easier in America. In the UK we barely have any gun crime. Because guns are much, much harder to get hold of. It's not rocket science.

But to my understanding the UK has a much higher instance of burglary and breaking and entering.
legendary
Activity: 2982
Merit: 1506
Pie Baking Contest: https://tinyurl.com/2s3z6dee
June 20, 2015, 09:25:18 AM
#88
I'm curious is there any conspiracy behind the gun control in society between government and gun manufacturers. http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
June 20, 2015, 09:23:39 AM
#87
Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!
You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.



As I stated in the other thread, I see where this is going.  You're a black-and-white thinker, and little more than a parrot of buzz-word rhetoric.  I don't have the time to educate you about how to stay within the context of an argument instead of changing it willy-nilly whenever you have an idea, nor do I have time to explain to you the difference between things like correlation and causation, the definition of "mediating variable," "false dichotomy," or otherwise.  I'll retain my freedom to both carry a gun and think for myself, thanks.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 09:20:58 AM
#86
Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!
You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homocide, or accident than for self-defense.


When was the national guard ever attacking law abiding citizens? BTW, nice picture, unfortunately you posted it 3 or 4 times already. Too bad posting pictures isn't a substitute for critical thought. BTW its spelled homicide.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 09:15:07 AM
#85
Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
I'll give you the same number of breaks the national guard will give you if you ever challenge government authority when it comes to your "right" to use your guns: ZERO.

Relevancy-->
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.

we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone!
You should always seek to protect yourself and your home from killers. A gun in the home is 22 (twenty-two!) times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than for self-defense.



Unlike random brainwashed internet conservatards with their useless anecdotes, data does not lie.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
June 20, 2015, 09:11:48 AM
#84
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Oh give me a break.  You just took a detour into total irrelevancy.  Tanks?  Really?
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 09:09:55 AM
#83
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.

picture

All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.

Great argument! Because our government uses military equipment in violation of posse comitatus to execute men women and children, and guns can't take out tanks, we shouldn't even bother resisting or protecting ourselves from anyone! In reality there were very brief instances where these people were actively shooting at officers.

If you studied the situation at all you would realize if they wanted to they could have initially killed a whole lot of police, but chose not to, and were primarily acting in self defense. BTW you know why the government decided to execute all of these men woman and children? Because of a supposed illegal firearm (that turned out later to be perfectly legal)! There is some gun control for you! After all though, the TV said they are "cultists", so it is ok that the government burned dozens of men women and children alive.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 08:59:54 AM
#82
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin
Actually, Franklin never said that.

It was first seen in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania in 1759; the book was written by one Richard Jackson, Ben Franklin was merely the publisher.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)
You have no rights. You have privileges.

Yes, he committed the horrible crime of paraphrasing. BTW way to read your own sources. There were multiple instances of this quote, the earliest of which were directly quoted by Franklin. Of course socialists love revisionism and would love to take from us the wisdom of our forefathers.

He actually said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)"

Of course a devout socialist such as yourself would argue that The Bill of Rights are not rights but privileges granted by the state. The exact opposite is true. The bill of rights is a list of rights the government is NOT allowed to infringe upon, not a list of rights granted by the state. Rights are granted by "God" under constitutional law, and are inalienable.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 08:58:08 AM
#81
And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
Yeah, why don't you ask the Texas Waco cultists how well that attitude holds up when push comes to shove. OH WAIT, you can't because they burned to death.



All your guns aren't going to even put a scratch on one of these.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
June 20, 2015, 08:55:11 AM
#80
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin
Actually, Franklin never said that.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)
You have no rights. You have privileges.

Fair enough.  I had actually thought it was Jefferson from memory, but to double check I just Googled the quote, and it popped up as Franklin.

Still, who said it, or if nobody said it, changes nothing.

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 08:51:16 AM
#79
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin
Actually, Franklin never wrote those words. First of all, the correct quote is “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

It was first seen in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania in 1759; the book was written by one Richard Jackson, Ben Franklin was merely the publisher.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)
You have no rights. You have privileges granted by your government, these can be taken away at any time of their choosing.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 501
June 20, 2015, 08:50:15 AM
#78
”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun) and hand them over to someone else in exchange for protection, you are acknowledging a few things:

1) You acknowledge that someone(s) are more capable of protecting you than yourself.

2) You acknowledge that that you are content with being at the mercy of the decisions of those to whom you have conceded your freedoms.

3) You acknowledge that the extent to which you continue to have liberties is determined by those to whom you gave up your others.

 
So, here's the question of the day:  If you believe you are not best suited to handle the security of yourself, then how can conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?

Rights should stop when other people rights are jeopardized, Guns are tools made to kill, giving people the liberty to own a gun just like that is irresponsible and it doesn't just put the owner the danger but everyone around, and as proven with the best above, guns ownership by any individual have the opposite effects.


You didn't really answer my question, but I expected nothing less. Gun control pushers often consider that their opinions are just a matter of fact, it is a pattern that is quite common. There has already been debate in this thread about gun violence vs overall crime. You linked a bunch of articles, not studies. The articles backed by studies use statistics about "gun deaths" which include suicides, self defensive uses of guns, and police use of guns. These statistics are paraded about as if they represent the gun MURDER rate, which is completely disingenuous.

Yes, the US has more gun deaths because there are more guns available, but it ALSO has a lower overall crime rate, including violent crime. Additionally jurisdictions with high gun ownership have less crime. You will also find that the jurisdictions that have the most gun deaths are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. So in short, no you haven't proven anything or changed my opinion. BTW do you even live in the US? I find it funny that people in other countries are so concerned about the safety of US citizens while most US citizens are pro gun rights. I wonder why that is. You would think if guns were responsible for all of this Americans would reject them.

Obviously you didn't even read any of the articles, maybe you should reread and check the data, statistics and studies that they are written upon and based on. So yes I've answered your question on point, on the other hand, you are the one here just stating your opinion without backing your claims.

So first of all lets discuss the data and statistics from the articles I posted (which are NOT opinions if you can't see the difference), in regards to what I mentioned in my initial posts and lets check if the only confirms what I said or not, instead of dodging.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 08:47:48 AM
#77

And based on what data do you make these conclusions? What makes you think "asking for the removal of such gun from other persons" will some how stop violent crime? Last I checked most criminals do not react well to a polite request to not victimize people.


(articles)

Do you need more? I can post another dozen if you find these not conclusive, I thought I was stating the obvious hence I didn't provided the source of the data but I hope now you've changed your opinion.

You didn't really answer my question, but I expected nothing less. Gun control pushers often consider that their opinions are just a matter of fact, it is a pattern that is quite common. There has already been debate in this thread about gun violence vs overall crime. You linked a bunch of articles, not studies. The articles backed by studies use statistics about "gun deaths" which include suicides, self defensive uses of guns, and police use of guns. These statistics are paraded about as if they represent the gun MURDER rate, which is completely disingenuous.

Yes, the US has more gun deaths because there are more guns available, but it ALSO has a lower overall crime rate, including violent crime. Additionally jurisdictions with high gun ownership have less crime. You will also find that the jurisdictions that have the most gun deaths are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. So in short, no you haven't proven anything or changed my opinion. BTW do you even live in the US? I find it funny that people in other countries are so concerned about the safety of US citizens while most US citizens are pro gun rights. I wonder why that is. You would think if guns were responsible for all of this Americans would reject them.
Jump to: