Author

Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 201. (Read 450482 times)

legendary
Activity: 1372
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.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
June 20, 2015, 08:43:43 AM
#76
 ”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) is 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 you conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
June 20, 2015, 08:20:55 AM
#74
I'am personally against owning a gun  but with too .
I like it how my country do it basically , please don't take this the wrong way I don't mean that normal citizens with average income have a cheap life .
Well basically here to own a gun you simply to be a Business man or something important on the society , that's all . and to be honest it's better that way , and killing here is a lot less then countries that allows owning guns .

i agree with you normal citizens dont need a gun but buisness men on the other hand run a larger risk so having bodyguards and carrying a gun is pretty natural for a rich buisnessman

Can you explain to me then why rich people have more of a right to defend themselves than everyone else? You claim they run a larger risk , but it is pretty clear some one living in the ghetto is at more risk of being victimized than a business man who lives in a nice safe neighborhood, even in spite of the fact that he has more to steal.

Short answer : not working.
To be honest making guns available is the worst mistake there is to be done, it makes crimes more extreme, people and police reactions and acts more extreme and deaths more likely to happen. And what makes matter is the mentality of thinking that if anyone can access to a gun then I need a gun myself to defend my self, making even more guns that are easily available .... rather than plainly asking for the removal of such gun from other persons.

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.

pictures

I know forming your own words and opinions are hard, because it means you might have to think and take responsibility for your words, but why do that when you can just post snarky political cartoons? If only life could be summed up by cartoons.

As long as we as a society hold profit-making as sacred, we will never claw our way out of this violent hell we've put ourselves into.

Right... because violence never existed before capitalism came around...
Way to dictate the premise of the conversation so you can shoehorn in your unrelated political beliefs again.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 08:18:44 AM
#73
As long as we as a society hold profit-making as sacred, we will never claw our way out of this violent hell we've put ourselves into.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
June 20, 2015, 08:15:43 AM
#72
Quote
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.

Guns are dangerous too, for those who knows very well how to use them. But I agree with you that Guns are made to only kill. There is no control now to stop these types of serial killing machines. We have to push ourselves to get accustomed on such killing scenarios. I have one curious doubt ? how many girls are used their gun when they have been assaulted or molested. 
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
June 20, 2015, 08:05:03 AM
#71










legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
June 20, 2015, 07:57:02 AM
#70

Well that's a neat little piece of information that tells you almost absolutely nothing.  If that's your basis for your opinion, you've chosen a context the size of a peep hole.

It seems like rather a straightforward statistic to me. In what way am I fudging it?

Because if you isolate that statistic, North Korea looks a heck of a lot better than the United States.  
Jump to: