Gun Control

as a hunter i think it is a right to own guns for recreational purposes but, i think that owning a .50 rifle is over doing it. weapons for self defense are also questionable because if we loosen those laws then i think more people could have guns to attack people. please post what you think. 

I think hunting rifles should be accessible for anyone fit to use them. Same thing with smaller hand guns.
Larger weapons such at automatic weapons or assault weapons should be available for the public at, and only at fire ranges.
Weapons should not be brought out in public because it is simply too easy to kill someone.

What?
The constitution is just a fucking piece of paper without regular citizens having guns.

I think gun ownership should be restricted, firearms make it too easy to kill. Any idiot can shoot someone, but to kill with a knife or a blunt object - that takes guts. With widespread gun ownership we get a lot of killers who wouldn't have killed otherwise. Hunting rifles are of course reasonable.

>>4
If someone is determined to kill, they will kill or attempt to. They will obtain a gun one way or another, legally, illegally, whatever. Widespread gun ownership doesn't change that, neither does gun control. No one is going to say "hey, you know, I wasn't going to kill this guy, but now that I can buy a gun at Walmart, I will!"

Gun ownership should not be regulated any more than it is. Any tool, when used improperly, can and does lead to the injury and death of persons. However, the idea behind an armed and capable populace is to protect the people from their government. There are countries all over the world whose populations are preyed upon physically and mentally by their governments who also have no access to firearms. Which country is up to the task of changing that?

The people should be armed and the government should be afraid of them.

>>5
We agree to disagree.

>>6
"the idea behind an armed and capable populace is to protect the people from their government"

While I respect the opinions of most people, this has always struck me as retarded. Yeah, your 12 gauge is really gonna help against a tank division..

I have a .50 rifle. If more people have guns then there would be less violent crime. No one's going to go in and hold a store up at gun point if they know someone else in there is going to have a gun ready, potentially everyone else. The same applies in any circumstance, and the problem is, we can try to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens because they will abide by gun control laws, but criminals will not have any less weapons, because they can break the law to get them. Gun control in the UK is very strict and now they have a rather large problem with violent crime, especially involving knives.

So there are two reasons the citizens need guns. One, defense from criminals who will always have weapons. Two, defense from tyranny in government. This was the design of the founding fathers, it is the primary reason we have guns. To number >>8, yes a 12 gauge wouldn't help, because a 12 gauge isn't designed for that purpose. Get a .50 rifle and put an armor piercing incendiary round in there and you could easily put a good hole in a tank, and I have all of this as well as a number of weapons of questionable legality that would make rebellion against tyrannical government rather easy should they be in the hands of the general populace. A government does not act in the benevolent interests of its citizens unless a government is afraid of its citizens. As well these guns of questionable legality are not difficult to get simply because of the law. One simply has to know where to get them, and a criminal easily would. I could take out a SWAT team if I was as good a marksman.  You also forget to take into account, if the government got that bad, you'd probably have a lot of the military on your side.

It's all about the issue of restricting property ownership. Government's purpose is not that of a censor taking away that which is "detrimental" to man but rather the governemnt's role is that of a mercenary. I pay the government to protect my rights not to have them take property away from me and then my freedom too if I wish to stop paying them or disobey them. If my right to own whatsoever I choose to is regulated by the government; then isn't my right to own my life also at the whim of a organization that spends millions each year to figure out what love is?

>>9

The defense against tyranny stuff is just weird, like something out of a comic book.. You know what's a fine example of a well-armed populace? Baghdad. Anyway, let's discuss numbers instead.

In 1999 the US had a murder rate of 4.55 out of 100,000. For England and Wales that number was 1.45.

There were 12,658 murders recorded in the US in 1999 and firearms were used in 65% of the cases. England and Wales had 766 murders in 1999 and firearms were used in 8% of the cases.

And that's England, a cesspool of violence and depravity. Compare the US to more civilized countries with low gun ownership, like Sweden or Japan, and you'll see an even clearer pattern.

Don't get me wrong, there are good arguments for lax gun laws. The inalienable freedom of the individual, for one. Hell, if you'd simply said "I want guns because I like them" I'd be able to respect you. But this talk about how more guns lead to less violent crime is just nonsense, it's just not true.

Numbers from: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

>>11
Misleading statistics.  The culture in America is vastly different than that of the UK.  The UK does not have as many people nor do they have such a diverse population(both culturally and socioeconomically).  It is only logically to conclude that if someone is desperate, they will find any way possible to escape their current condition.  Most robberies are done out of desperation(whether or not the thing the criminal perceives as necessary is in fact so).  Guns do not just make it convenient to kill someone, the intention is already there in most cases.  The gun just makes it quicker.

>>11 You're basing these statistics on the idea that the US is a country that has sufficient gun ownership, it is not. As well America happens to have a more violent culture, even moreso than other countries where everyone has guns. I mean if you even speak to people from other countries, they don't even get angry about their government as much even if they have things that are completely unacceptable like a 50 percent income tax. It's different culture that isn't dependent on gun ownership. In Switzerland every adult male is a member of the military, they not only own guns but are trained with them as well, and the crime rate is very low. Yet their culture isn't as violent as ours. Take into account a culture that is more prone to violence, and it's just common sense. If a person knows if they're going to try and commit a crime in the vicinity of people who will also have guns, they will be less likely to do it. Unfortunately there is nowhere in the US with sufficient gun ownership where a person knows that people around them will also have guns.

And how is protection against tyranny in government like something from a comic book? It was the specific design from the founding fathers, you could find countless quotes by Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers speaking of the necessity of a government that is afraid of its citizens, of rebelling against tyranny in government, etc.. You've never lived under suffering or oppression but the founding fathers had just come from the direct experience of oppressive government and inevitably, even a government of their design that had fail safes against it, would become convoluted and corrupt, as ours has. Give it another 100 years, and unless I come into the office of president, there will be a revolt.

>>11
>>8

How many people are in the US military? 1.4 million. How many people in the US are not in the military? 298.6 million. It doesn't matter that they have an advantage in weaponry, if 100 million armed citizens staged a relatively organized revolution, the government would be fucked. Without arms, there is next to no chance of success. Thus, America can overthrow the government if necessary as long as we have guns.

>>7
What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? If you have an opposing opinion, you should be able to argue it, if you are just going to be a stubborn asshole every time your views are challenged then what the fuck are you doing on this board? Look, people kill people for a lot of reasons but convenience sure as hell ain't one of them.

>>11
You cannot compare other countries murder rates to the US and expect 1 tiny reason to be the sole cause. The world doesn't work like that. Correlation != causation. It's simple, criminals will always have access to guns, they are criminals and thus will obtain them illegally. Gun control just prevents law abiding citizens from owning guns.

>>11
They have to be libertarian aswell. I sent e-mails and e-mails to the white house during the military build up in Saudi Arabia in 2002/2003 saying that if you want to overthrow saddam all you have to do is drop libertarian propoganda over Baghdad. I even got a call from the NSA asking me how I knew they were going to invade. I couldn't stop laughing, but that's another story.

Does anybody have the gun related crimes statistics of Switzerland ?
As far as I know they have compulsory military service there and everyboy takes his rifle home after few weeks of training.
It would be interesting to see how many gun related crimes they have, wouldn't it?
Keep in mind that they have military hardware which is banned in the US.

>>16
No one is allowed their statistics because there are no black people in switzerland and it might give people ideas.

Here's a comparison.
Drugs are banned, yet I still see weed on the streets, and is commonly talked about.
Banning something is more like the government's take on things. It's more like an opinion then a threat. Sure, it's inforced, but as easy as it is to sneak into our borders with drugs, it's the same with guns.
Criminals will always be criminals, and they will do anything to get their hands on what they need, same goes for 18 year old druggies.

Here's another comparison.
Daving sex with kids is banned, yet i still see people having sex with kids, and it's commonly talked about.
Banning something is like the governmetn's take on things. It's more like an opinion then a threat. Sure, it's inforced, but as easy as it is to sneak into our borders with kids, it's the same with guns.
Criminals will always be criminals, and theyw ill do everything to get their hands on what they need, same goes for 18 year old pedophiles.

>>19
The kid doesn't have the choice.

>>14
"What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? If you have an opposing opinion, you should be able to argue it, if you are just going to be a stubborn asshole every time your views are challenged then what the fuck are you doing on this board? Look, people kill people for a lot of reasons but convenience sure as hell ain't one of them."

We each argued pretty much the opposite of what the other was saying and neither of us had any facts to support it. It doesn't make much sense to keep arguing in a situation like that. I am convinced that people kill more the more convenient it is (which is actually supported by the statistics later in the thread) and he is convinced they don't. What do you want us to do, yell at each other?

>>13
Switzerland actually has farily strict gun laws; all purchases being registered, mandatory weapon lockers, and so on (which is not unusual for countries with militia). It is true that they have widespread gun ownership, but in 1992 they also had the second highest handgun murder rate (after the US). In 1999 it was slightly lower, at 1.01 out of 100,000 (1.25 for all murders). That's lower than England and Wales (again, cesspool) but still way higher than Sweden and Japan. A staggering 81% of all murders in Switzerland are committed with firearms.

>>14
"It's simple, criminals will always have access to guns, they are criminals and thus will obtain them illegally. Gun control just prevents law abiding citizens from owning guns."

No. It is obvious from the various reports that gun crime ranges from scarce to virtually unheard of in countries with strict gun laws. People use knives and blunt objects instead, which is a bigger hassle and thus you have less violence.

>>22
A correction, where I wrote "[t]hat's lower than England and Wales" I meant Switzerland has a lower murder rate than E&W, not a lower firearms related murder rate.

>>22
>No. It is obvious from the various reports that gun crime ranges from scarce to virtually unheard of in countries with strict gun laws.

This doesn't say anythig about whether guns cause crimes or not.

>People use knives and blunt objects instead, which is a bigger hassle and thus you have less violence.

You made this up.
There's no evidence to back this up and that's why the debate about gun control is still going on.
I think that if someone wants to kill another person, he will do it whether he has a gun or not.
There's no "I gonna shoot somebody just because I want some fun with my pistol."

>>24
but think about it, if people can't kill other people with guns, they'll have to use something else. killing people with guns is by far the easiest, so everything else will be more trouble. If you look at it psychologically there is a major difference between stabbing someone repeatedly untill they die, and *blam* shoot them dead.
As has been mentioned before, criminals who want guns can get guns, this counts more or less all over the world. But if you look at crimes of passion amongst civilians, it would practically, and psychologically, be more difficult to directly kill a person without a firearm.
Even for 'gangs' or whatever, the increased difficulty of getting a firearm, will raise the price of acquiring one illegally too, logically an increased price will mean that less people can afford them, sure, hardened criminals will be able and willing to acquire guns, but with proper punishment and regulation, petty criminals wouldn't want/dare to.
You have to remember, that if everyone have guns, then a criminal needs to have a gun too, in order to protect himself while committing the crime (not talking about killers/murderers here). By this, logically, if nobody had guns, criminals wouldn't need them either. Of course, a utopian thought, but there could still be something about it.

>>25

Dude, you're totally missing to point.
A murder is planned.
So murderers are 100% determined to kill and it doesn't matter how.
"But what about second degree murder?" I hear you ask.
Those are rage induced and while there's a chance that the would be perpetrator gives up if he doesn't find a suitable weapon he can still make it into a first degree murder.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30756.html
The USA needs a system more like what the Swiss have.  Most of the USA's violence and murders come from areas full of gun grabbers.

Unfortunately, the gun grabbers are about to fuck up one of the greatest systems in the world. 
http://www.nzz.ch/2007/03/25/eng/article7650003.html

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Here's an excerpt from the 2nd link:
"    * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.37

    * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed."

If anything is done to lower crime, it should be making gun ownership mandatory, not pushing for stupid gun control laws that don't do shit anyway.  Background checks are ok though.

>>24
"You made this up.
There's no evidence to back this up and that's why the debate about gun control is still going on.
I think that if someone wants to kill another person, he will do it whether he has a gun or not.
There's no 'I gonna shoot somebody just because I want some fun with my pistol.'"

Well, there's always the statistics. Countries with few guns have very little gun crime and a low murder rate. Countries with lots of guns have high murder rate and a huge percentage is gun related (65% for US, 81% for Switzerland).

But I agree that there is no obvious solution in America, that's why there's still debate. Most of the world has abandoned guns and enjoy lower crime rates, but it's possible that such a move would be impossible in the US because of already rampant crime.

"So murderers are 100% determined to kill and it doesn't matter how."

I'm sorry, but if I can't make things up then neither can you. There's nothing to support your statement.

>>29
"Well, there's always the statistics. Countries with few guns have very little gun crime and a low murder rate.Countries with lots of guns have high murder rate and a huge percentage is gun related (65% for US, 81% for Switzerland)."

You'll win the nobel prize if you can prove that this is related to gun ownership.
Because you can't.
Saying that guns are responsible for crimes because people use them while commiting a crime is completely retarded.
If you want less crimes then you're going the wrong way.
Ask yourself WHO commits crimes and WHY and not with what.

""So murderers are 100% determined to kill and it doesn't matter how."

I'm sorry, but if I can't make things up then neither can you. There's nothing to support your statement."

First degree murder is by defition planned.
That means that a murderer really wanted his victim dead.

>>30
"You'll win the nobel prize if you can prove that this is related to gun ownership."

Hey, it's a theory. Most people outside the US agree with it. As for first degree murder, I don't know what that is. We only have "murder" here. It seems sort of off topic, prima facie it's obvious that not all murders are planned. And naturally part of planning a murder is the means with which you're going to kill - someone with access to assault rifles may go ahead with the plan where someone who only has access to pointy sticks decides it's too risky.

>>31

Not a theory but a hypothesis and it doesn't matter how many people agree with it.
People agreed with the world being flat in the middle ages, didn't they?

I kinda forgot that many countries have their own definitions of murder.
What I was trying to say is that if someone really wants to kill  then he will.
Only someone who doesn't care if he gets caught will use a gun.
A regular man won't shoot his wife but he'll rather poison her.
As I said you should ask why are people commiting crimes and not what they use because everything can serve as a weapon.
People could kill you with a pencil or their bare hands.
You see, taking away a tool doesn't make someone less dangerous.
A better idea would be to take away the motivation to kill.

>>32
"You see, taking away a tool doesn't make someone less dangerous."

Sure it does. Take away the chainsaw from a deranged psychopath and he'll instantly become less dangerous.

Imagine there are only two ways to kill people. One is a device that looks like a Nintendo Wii controller, only when you point it at someone and push the button that person dies. It works at any range. The other way is using a toothpick. Now suddenly the remote thing is banned, and disappears from the market completely. The people that are 100% hellbent on killing will still kill, using toothpicks. But everyone else will weigh their options and evaluate these new circumstances. They could kill with the toothpick, but it's definitely gonna be messy. It'll take strength to overcome the victim and you'll obviously need the stomach to repededly stab someone. Since you have to get up close to your victim there's a much higher risk of getting caught. And so on. Fewer people kill.

I find it obvious that the _easier_ it is to kill, the _more_ people will kill. But we are repeating ourselves and as you previously said there is no easy answer. I'm willing to leave it at that.

In Switzerland, every adult male is required to have a gun due to militia, it has more guns, but less crime.

>>34
This has already been addressed. There's nothing special about Switzerland's crime rate. For example they have a noticeably higher murder rate than the Scandinavian countries, the latter in which guns are rare.

>>33

Now this is a funny move.
"One last thing but then I quit."
Should I answer not?
I mean, you're trying to argue but then "I'm willing to leave it at that."
Well, whether you care or not: You say that people commit crimes just because they can. But I say they do it because something is wrong. Did you notice that most criminals are poor and uneducated? I don't want to  give up a right for a half-assed attempt at lowering the crime rate while something else would more effective without touching my freedom.

>>36
I wasn't arguing anything new. A common fallacy in internet debate is "last post wins". This leads to endless repetition, which I wanted to avoid. Thus, the last word is yours and we will all contemplate it.

>>37

Hypocrisy at its best.

Fine, fuck quitting then..

>>36
"Well, whether you care or not: You say that people commit crimes just because they can. But I say they do it because something is wrong. Did you notice that most criminals are poor and uneducated? I don't want to  give up a right for a half-assed attempt at lowering the crime rate while something else would more effective without touching my freedom."

Yes, your proposed dichotomy of criminal behaviour is no doubt accurate. We can either make it more difficult to kill or we can combat the underlying causes. The thing is, fewer guns works. The murder rates are lower. Combating underlying causes, well I haven't heard of that ever working. It sounds like a clever distraction. "Hey let's solve poverty and make people stop wanting to kill". How's that working out for you?

>>39

>The thing is, fewer guns works.

Simply not true.

>Combating underlying causes, well I haven't heard of that ever working.

Never been tried because banning something sounds like the easy way out.

>>40
"Simply not true."

Ok, let me rephrase that. Countries with few guns have lower murder rates than countries with lots of guns. You can interpret that any way you want.

"Never been tried because banning something sounds like the easy way out."

Yeah, that's it. No one has ever tried to solve world poverty because they would rather take your guns.

>>41

>Yeah, that's it. No one has ever tried to solve world poverty because they would rather take your guns.

It has nothing to do with world poverty but the income inequality within the country.
Now we're sliding from gun control to economy.

>>42
So I take it that no one has ever tried to even out income gaps within the country because they would rather grab guns then?

Could it be that poverty is a huge and possibly unsolvable problem, and while we're attempting to solve it people will still kill each other at the same rate? I say this is all distraction on your part. You might as well suggest that we should all agree on what the meaning of life is and learn to live side by side as brothers before we attempt to do anything else.

>>39
No, fewer guns doesn't work. All you have succeeded in proving is that other countries have different murder rates than the US. No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean anything, other countries have vastly different statistics and populations than us, number of gun owners is just one of them. There is no way that you can say that that is the ONLY reason they have lower murder rates. Correlation != Causation. Correlation != Causation. Correlation != Causation. How many times do I need to say it?

When have you ever heard of someone killing because it was convenient? It just doesn't happen, you are pulling that completely out of your ass. It takes a certain mentality to take a human life, it doesn't matter if you use a knife or a gun, it will still have basically the same effect on you.

You've never heard of combating underlying causes working? Are you blind? Poverty breeds crime, get people out of poverty and they will be less likely to kill because their life actually has some worth. Great job, let's leave poverty alone because it's too hard to fix and it's easier just to take people's guns away. Sorry, no, difficulty is not a valid reason to not try to change something.

Look, you still don't get it, criminals WILL have access to guns whether they are illegal or not. This is how the black market functions. And if some guns are legal then they will obviously have access to them. Are you saying we should ban all guns? Because that is seriously retarded. One of the first things a fascist regime does when it takes power is to ban guns to prevent rebellion. We need guns as a defense against tyranny. Yes, having absolutely zero guns would reduce crime, but at what cost? Do the ends justify the means? No, it would require a gigantic expansion of the government to enforce it and make sure that not one gun gets into the hands of a citizen, and would effectively create a police state, with no option of rebellion. It's about the 2nd amendment, it's about freedom.

>>43
>So I take it that no one has ever tried to even out income gaps within the country because they would rather grab guns then?

>Could it be that poverty is a huge and possibly unsolvable problem, and while we're attempting to solve it people will still kill each other at the same rate?

Never tried? No, there were times of economic prosperity and the cime rates dropped.
But look at country now. Half of the population  voted for socialism.
The US should be renamed to UdSSR Reloaded.
It's not unsolvable but singing the russian national anthem is much more convenient for so many people.

>>44
Whoaw. I may not have any evidence that fewer guns does work (since that seems unattainable by your standards), but you don't have any evidence that it doesn't. Back to status quo. Am I right?

The same goes for increased murder rate with increased convenience. I say it is, you say it isn't. I boldly claim that the statistics support my view and you vocally disagree. At least I try to use facts. You have nothing. But we can shout at each other if you want to.

I have heard of combating underlying causes, I haven't heard of it working. Is there perhaps statistics to suggest that it is? I am by no means close-minded, lay it on me.

As for criminals having access to guns whether they are illegal or not I say "no". That's not true. In countries with strict gun laws criminals don't mainly use guns. They use knives and blunt objects. Some guns find their way onto the black market of course, with smuggling and whatnot, but not enough to satisfy the demand.

And here we go again with the fascism. Throw in some founding fathers, a dash of freedom and maybe.. God? Is that the star spangled-banner I hear? I can't relate, I'm sorry.

Guns don't kill people
people kill people

Thermonuclear warheads don't kill people. People kill people. Now let's get rid of that pesky non-proliferation treaty.

>>48
I lol'd, here here. Let the Iranians have em, they know we'd fucking light them if they tried shit.

>>39
A clever distraction, wow, you must be one hell of a douchebag in real life.
Cutting poverty would reduce the motivation for crime, rather than   putting an obstacle in the way of criminals=

okay the claim that other countries with gun control have fewer murders is pissing me off. First you are looking at murder rates involving firearms for the other country and comparing them to the U.S.'s. Of fucking course the other country is going to have a smaller number. first of all the country has a limited inflow of guns and second of all the population is probably a hell of a lot smaller than the U.S. because most times Britian is brought up as the other country. use a proportion of number of homicides to population and i bet you they will be close (within 0.3) except Japan because they are non-violent, pedo, shit-fuck fags

Use your fucking stats properly 4chan!!!

>>51

most stats are made in kills per 1000 people or in percentage of total crime, and can thus be statistically compared with other nations. if they weren't made like that there wouldn't be a use in making them.

‭‮INGINGINGOMGOMGOMGOMGING BAWWARDS LOLOLOLOLOLLOL

>>51

No, I compared murder rates period. And the size of the population doesn't matter since we're talking rates (x out of 100,000). There is a link to the UN report in this thread so you can see for yourself. I brought up the UK as a show of good faith, since they have lots of violence despite having strict gun laws.

>>46

God, you are a fucking moron. It's not about evidence. It's about common fucking sense. I could say "In my opinion, 1=2, evidence shows that 1 and 2 are both numbers, therefore by the transitive property 1=2. You don't have any evidence that 1 does not equal 2, therefore I am right." No, it doesn't work like that. Using bullshit statistics (as I have already pointed out) does not give your argument more merit, and saying that we only have a difference of opinion doesn't mean anything.

"Your opinion" that people kill because of convenience is just fucking flat out WRONG, you can believe it all you want but it is wrong. All it takes is a rudimentary understanding of human psychology and some basic common sense to see this. Why, why would someone EVER kill someone because it was convenient?? When has it EVER happened? When has there EVER been ANY scientific studies that show that a person will kill because of convenience? It is not my job to provide evidence that it isn't a reason, when you make an outrageous claim like that that goes against basic common sense it is YOUR job to provide empirical evidence to support your argument. This is not a "status quo", you are wrong unless you can prove that you are right.

"As for criminals having access to guns whether they are illegal or not I say "no". That's not true. In countries with strict gun laws criminals don't mainly use guns. They use knives and blunt objects. Some guns find their way onto the black market of course, with smuggling and whatnot, but not enough to satisfy the demand.

And here we go again with the fascism. Throw in some founding fathers, a dash of freedom and maybe.. God? Is that the star spangled-banner I hear? I can't relate, I'm sorry."

What the christ are you talking about? You are arguing against yourself... I already addressed this argument in my previous post, try actually reading.

>>55

Haha, here come the feelings. Tell us how you really feel.. Seriously though. Increased crime levels with increased convenience is basic criminology, I shouldn't have to go over it. We assess the dangers, risks and amount of effort involved in commiting a crime and then act upon this assessment. Should any of these deterring aspects outweigh the prospective gain, we don't act. This is true for all our actions, not just criminal ones.

I'm not sure what you have pointed out about my "bullshit" statistics, but if you're the guy who raved about how "the population is probably a hell of a lot smaller" you shouldn't be commenting on statistics at all.

As for my remark about a "status quo" you actually wrote "[f]ewer guns doesn't work" in response to my claim that it does. While I could be wrong (hypothetically), there is nothing to suggest that you are right (or that you adhere to "common sense"). On the contrary I would say that your statement is counterintuitive and is just as much in need of evidence as mine. By your rationale creationist ideas would be proven true simply because there is no satisfying proof for evolution. It doesn't work that way.

You're not trying to reason, you're simply agitated. There is no skill involved in what you are doing. You'll notice that even though I could say that you're an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about criminology or even philosophy in general, I don't - because it would be too cheap. You on the other hand can't seem to stop being pejorative (or rather trying to be) and blurting out profanities.

>>56

Basic criminology?
Up you ass.
I can prove that you know shit about criminology or science in general by this:
"As for my remark about a "status quo" you actually wrote "[f]ewer guns doesn't work" in response to my claim that it does. While I could be wrong (hypothetically), there is nothing to suggest that you are right (or that you adhere to "common sense"). On the contrary I would say that your statement is counterintuitive and is just as much in need of evidence as mine. By your rationale creationist ideas would be proven true simply because there is no satisfying proof for evolution. It doesn't work that way."

Looks like your passion to bitch about rednecks buttfucked you.

>>57

I find it amusing that out of my various points, I admit some less carefully engineered than others, you pick the one that no sane person could contest. I say "this measure works" and present (this is for the sake of argument) poor or nonexistent proof. You then say "you don't have any proof so clearly my own measure, which is the opposite of yours, works". That's just not a rational assumption.

And rednecks? I haven't mentioned rednecks. You're fighting windmills.

>>58

>I say "this measure works" and present (this is for the sake of argument) poor or nonexistent proof. You then say "you don't have any proof so clearly my own measure, which is the opposite of yours, works". That's just not a rational assumption.

No, I didn't say that.
I'm a different person and you've no idea abou my stance on evolution so making assumptions is very stupid.

>I'm a different person
I meant I'm not the same dude you've argued with before.

>>59

For crying out loud.. I used evolution as an example from current events, I wasn't commenting on either evolution or anyone's stance on it.

>>60
Yeah I got that. That's my bad.

>>61

You used it to put words in my mouth resp. the mouths of gun ownership supporters and fished for sympathy among the evolution theory supporters.
You may not know it but only a small amount of people agree with creationism and most of them are not capable to use a computer.

>>63
I assure you that's not the case, I merely wanted an example we could all relate to. I apologize if that was unclear.

>>62
Anonymous Egg, you are my new idol! Flawless victory with a fatality to boot!

>>63
You are stupid. The fact that you do not realize this makes you look stupid. Spare your children the everlasting embarrassment and admit defeat, even if you cant see how you've been defeated.

>>64

I don't believe you.

Anyways, since you claim that statistics prove you right I'll show through an example why this doesn't work that easy.
There has been a study about kids and TV and it showed (through statistics) that children who watched a lot TV had bad grades in school.
Now you can make two assumptions:
1. too much TV makes you dumb
2. only dumb kids watch too much TV
To get the truth, you have to take almost identical subjects and observe how are they affected over a period of time.
This doesn't work with countries.

>>65
>MUP DO DOO DIGGA PO MO GUB BIDDA BE DAT TUM MUHFUGEN BIX NOOD COF BIN DUB HO MUHFUGGA

fix'd

>>56

Just shut the fuck up, honestly. Do you know where you are? This is 4chan, not some queer ass little lollipops and gumdrops discussion site where no one says "pejoratives" and "profanities". Grow a fucking pair. Your smug sense of superiority only makes you look like a complete douchebag, a 17 year old, and a moron.

There is proof for evolution, there is no proof for gun control, false dichotomy. For the millionth time, your statistics are complete bullshit because CORRELATION != CAUSATION, and you CAN'T compare two countries murder rates and expect there to be only ONE reason for the discrepancy. Can you even fucking read??

"We assess the dangers, risks and amount of effort involved in commiting a crime and then act upon this assessment. Should any of these deterring aspects outweigh the prospective gain, we don't act. This is true for all our actions, not just criminal ones."

Hey, that may be the first semi-rational thought you've brought to the discussion! Now, let's use an example. A man really hates his wife and wants to murder her. Here are the gains:
1. Bitch is dead
2. He gets her stuff
But most importantly, she's dead. Here are the deterrents:
1. Getting caught, life in prison
2. Has to live with the guilt for the rest of his life, the memory burned into his conscious of him taking a human life and watching his wife die.
3. Obtaining a gun is kind of a pain in the ass, 3 day waiting period and other shit like that, assuming he doesn't already have a gun even though he has no criminal record.
4. He would miss his favorite TV show.

Hmmmmmmmm, now which of these deterrents do you think actually have a chance of stopping him? Obviously the solution here is to increase the importance of watching TV! Sorry, no, while convenience may be a deterring factor, it is not a significant one at all and therefore not a rational way to reduce murder. I still haven't heard your position on gun control, do you propose banning all guns? Because as I have already said this is a surefire way to breed a despotic regime since you would be expanding the government significantly to enforce it and you would be taking away the option of rebellion, but you haven't responded to those points.

>>68
I'm sorry but all I hear is MUP DO DOO DIGGA PO MO GUB BIDDA BE DAT TUM MUHFUGEN BIX NOOD COF BIN DUB HO MUHFUGGA

>>69
You fail sirrah.  >>68 brings light and wind to the word and is blocking the pool so people don't get AIDS.

>>68
I will suck your cock for your fine display of manliness.

>>68

Ah fuck it, I wanted to leave it alone but I can't. I wish I could quit you.

Yeah this is 4chan - home of trash-talking, racist jokes and pedophilia. Excuse me for thinking we could have a civil discourse in the midst of such mayhem. You know, I always thought it was the other way around, douchebag 17-year-olds being the ones who say "fuck" and insult people. Maybe I'm wrong.

First of all, that's not how you use "false dichotomy". And just fucking leave evolution alone then, maybe it's a poor example. That's what I get for trying to be more American. Use the principle of charity, you know damn well what I mean. If there is no evidence for theory A then we are still where we started, not at theory B. You are using a logical fallacy. I say "fewer guns work" and present poor proof (again, for the sake of argument). You respond that my proof is poor and that it's hence proven that fewer guns doesn't work. Since there's not enough empirical evidence and (in practice) no means of testability a correct statement would be that neither is proven to be true.

Wow, just lay off the statistics issue. I know the difference between correlation and causation. I am making an argument, suggesting that the statistics support my theory and argue in favor of causation. That's politics for you. It's not like "fewer guns" is my own theory (I wish, I'd be famous), it's the one used all over the world except in that lovely place you call home. I mention this not as an appeal to majority, but because it seems that you are saying my claim is extraordinary. It isn't, yours is.

Yeah you're example is fine, let's have another one. A guy wants to get rid of his boss. He doesn't have the stomach to stab him to death (he probably couldn't overpower him anyway) and besides he doesn't want to risk leaving fingerprints or DNA. With the magic of firearms he can overcome his inhibition to kill and sufficiently lower the risk of being seen and getting caught. There are people who won't be deterred by anything, those fueled by revenge or other strong emotions, but a rational individual will always make the risk assessment.

>>71
Pre-emptive strike against someone pointing out "you're" instead of "your" in the last paragraph. Damage averted. Carry on.

It looks like >>71 is posting the same stuff over and over again regardless of the answer he got.

I also like how he's using the word theory and not hypothesis and then writes about logic and proof.

>>73
Hey, there are only so many ways to elaborate your position in. You'll notice that the other guy (or guys, who knows) makes pretty much the same case over and over again. Point taken though, I'll try to be more responsive. I see now that I fucked up in this respect since 68s post was truncated and I didn't read the final paragraph. Also I missed the last few points in the penultimate.

>>68
"I still haven't heard your position on gun control, do you propose banning all guns? Because as I have already said this is a surefire way to breed a despotic regime since you would be expanding the government significantly to enforce it and you would be taking away the option of rebellion, but you haven't responded to those points."

I don't necessarily advocate gun control, I advocate good arguments. My stance doesn't affect this.. quarrel ("debate" would be stretching it). As I said earlier the whole tyranny thing is too alien to me and I can't relate to it. Since there are plenty of other points (exciting things like logic and behavioural science) to discuss I won't comment on it.

Your example is strange, because you talk about a three day waiting period and whatnot. That is the current American system. I am of course talking about a hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited, and the impact such a system would have on the previously mentioned risk assessment stage. You're missing the point, which leads me to believe that you aren't really trying.

>>74
Sorry, English isn't my first language. I blame google.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22prove+a+theory%22&word2=%22prove+a+hypothesis%22

Its my honest oppinion, and many are against me on this, that guns should be kept if only to keep the government in line. now, let me please continue my point before you begin to bash me. if there was ever a need to over throw the government, to rid our selves of a system that truely did not work on ANY level,((i do not support anarchy for the sake of anarchy)) i beleive that we as americans must be prepared to rebel against a out of control government.

>>75
"I don't necessarily advocate gun control, I advocate good arguments. My stance doesn't affect this.. quarrel ("debate" would be stretching it). As I said earlier the whole tyranny thing is too alien to me and I can't relate to it. Since there are plenty of other points (exciting things like logic and behavioural science) to discuss I won't comment on it."

Your stance doesn't affect this? What? The topic is gun control, you give your stance on the issue and respond to others, that's how it works. How doesn't your stance affect this? If you have no answers and can only criticize mine, well that's pretty stupid if you ask me. How is the tyranny argument alien to you? Are you familiar with American history? Well, it all started with some tyrannical mercantilist Brits exploiting their American colony through taxation etc. This pissed the Americans off and they rebelled. They beat the vastly superior British Army because of... guns! Yes, they gave everyone and their kid a musket and even though they lacked military experience, they won because guns leveled the playing field. Their are lots of other examples of this in history. Guns are the key to revolution, whether you can "relate to it" or not.

"Your example is strange, because you talk about a three day waiting period and whatnot. That is the current American system. I am of course talking about a hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited, and the impact such a system would have on the previously mentioned risk assessment stage. You're missing the point, which leads me to believe that you aren't really trying."

A hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited? What the hell is that supposed to mean? That is too vague to mean anything and I suspect you don't actually have any idea how to reduce crime through gun control.

"A guy wants to get rid of his boss. He doesn't have the stomach to stab him to death (he probably couldn't overpower him anyway) and besides he doesn't want to risk leaving fingerprints or DNA. With the magic of firearms he can overcome his inhibition to kill and sufficiently lower the risk of being seen and getting caught. There are people who won't be deterred by anything, those fueled by revenge or other strong emotions, but a rational individual will always make the risk assessment."

Okay... so how do you prevent a person with no criminal record who wants to murder someone from obtaining a gun? You can ban all guns, which punishes law abiding gun owners, as well as the tyranny problem, as well as the whole violation of the constitution. So, what do you propose? If you have no answers and can only raise hypothetical situations, then your ideology doesn't make much sense.

Guns should be cheap.  Bullets should cost $5000 each.  Problem solved.

Fiiiive thoouuuusand dollas.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Our founding fathers put it in there because they want you to use it in case the US government if it ever became tyrannical.

>>1
hunt with your hands and sharpened sticks ya pansy-faggot. oh look. i'm a fuckin legend because i can shoot this bear/deer/rabbit from 200yards away...

hunting means stalking, waiting and delivering 1 blow kills.

not shooting shit in a forest...

>>82

but guns are more effective for keeping populations of animals down.

>>84
so are high explosives but u dont use them

>>85
That's for fishing.

>>86
true dat

>>85
fuck you, you want to ban high explosives now? What happenned to the days when you could buy 6 sticks of dynamite with a pound of sugar at the corner store?

>>88
Explosives aren't banned, fyi, you just need to go through a bit of paperwork to get them. 

ok so I shuld get the EVGA 8800 GTX 768MB PCIe vid card right coz it has better gun control?

a coupla sticks of geliganite and an old alarum clock.

>>78
Hello, friend, sorry for the delay.

"Your stance doesn't affect this? What? The topic is gun control, you give your stance on the issue and respond to others, that's how it works. How doesn't your stance affect this? If you have no answers and can only criticize mine, well that's pretty stupid if you ask me. How is the tyranny argument alien to you? Are you familiar with American history? Well, it all started with some tyrannical mercantilist Brits exploiting their American colony through taxation etc. This pissed the Americans off and they rebelled. They beat the vastly superior British Army because of... guns! Yes, they gave everyone and their kid a musket and even though they lacked military experience, they won because guns leveled the playing field. Their are lots of other examples of this in history. Guns are the key to revolution, whether you can 'relate to it' or not."

No, I don't have to take a stand on gun control in order to debate it. That's not "how it works". You go on about tyranny and rebellion and I chose not to respond to that out of politeness and respect for our cultural differences. I understand that "defense from tyranny" is a valid argument in America but it isn't in the rest of the civilized world. My only alternative to silence would be to mock you, and that wouldn't be nice. Let's just rejoice in our diversity.

I actually have answers, my answer is: restrict gun ownership. You will enjoy less crime in general and more importantly a lower murder rate. Criminals won't be able to get hold of guns as evidenced by the fact that in no country with restricted gun ownership is gun crime rampant. There is of course the issue of transition, I'll give you that.

"A hypothetical system in which the access to firearms is very limited? What the hell is that supposed to mean? That is too vague to mean anything and I suspect you don't actually have any idea how to reduce crime through gun control."

It is vague because I was previously accused of repeating myself. The hypothetical system is the system used in the rest of the world - one in which gun ownership is limited to that for the purpose of hunting and competitive shooting. In such a system there would not be a ready access to firearms and in the risk assessment stage any individual considering murder would have to factor in a more taxing (both physically and mentally) and risky "modus operandi". Since you responded to this by saying that a three day waiting period is hardly enough to deter anyone you are obviously not familiar with this argument, in fact one might even say that you inadvertently support it.

"Okay... so how do you prevent a person with no criminal record who wants to murder someone from obtaining a gun? You can ban all guns, which punishes law abiding gun owners, as well as the tyranny problem, as well as the whole violation of the constitution. So, what do you propose? If you have no answers and can only raise hypothetical situations, then your ideology doesn't make much sense."

When there are no guns on the market obtaining one is a hassle. This is not only obvious prima facie but supported by the fact that murders in countries with few or no guns on the market are committed with other means - again, usually knives or blunt objects. Not only is your claim that criminals always will have access to guns false (by the same rationale criminals will always have access to plutonium), but a system without guns would also deter from impulse murders - for example a non-habitual criminal acting in a fit of rage.

cum control?

>>92

Hope you two don't mind if I jump into the discussion.  While I'm at it, here's a few fact sheets and documents to consider: 
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209

"You go on about tyranny and rebellion and I chose not to respond to that out of politeness and respect for our cultural differences. I understand that "defense from tyranny" is a valid argument in America but it isn't in the rest of the civilized world."

Why is defense against tyranny an invalid argument in 'the rest of the civilized world'?

"I actually have answers, my answer is: restrict gun ownership. You will enjoy less crime in general and more importantly a lower murder rate."

States with lax gun control laws, such as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Alaska have some of the lowest crime rates in Alaska.  Vermont is one of the few states in America that lets you carry concealed firearms without a permit, and they have been nominated as the safest state in the nation for years on end.  Conversely, the areas of the United States that have high crime and murder rates, such as Washington D.C., have stringent gun control laws enacted.  States that have enacted right to carry laws have enjoyed massive reductions of crime following the enactment of such laws.  Kennesaw GA enacted a law MANDATING that the head of household maintain a firearm and some ammunition.  Subsequently, the residential burglary rate fell by 89%.  The rate for the state of Georgia as a whole dropped by around 10%.  Ten years after the passing of the law, the crime rate was still 72% lower than it was before the area had passed the mandatory gun ownership law.  Following the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban that was enacted back in the 90's, the crime rate actually fell 3.6 percent.  So to all appearances, what we need is to encourage responsible gun ownership.

"Criminals won't be able to get hold of guns as evidenced by the fact that in no country with restricted gun ownership is gun crime rampant."

In England, a handgun ban was emplaced.  Subsequently, the use of handguns to commit crimes went up 40%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
Crimes with guns have soared in numerous UK cities.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/712807/posts

Crimes with guns have increased dramatically in Australia as well following the enactment of their own gun control measures:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/guncrimesoars.htm

Also, with the banning of many of these firearms, as you will see in the articles, this creates a black market wherein criminals can then get their guns.  Criminals don't obey gun control laws.  If you pass a law disarming everyone, the lawful will obey and the criminals will not.  The result is that the law-abiding are disarmed, and the criminals are free to run rampant without the fear of getting shot when they break into someone's house at night, thanks to the fact that they know that the person is legally disarmed.  Gun control = victim disarmament.

"When there are no guns on the market obtaining one is a hassle."

Washington D.C. has had stringent gun control laws, and they have a burgeoning black market for firearms.  The United Kingdom has banned guns, and even though they are an island nation, they now have a burgeoning black market for firearms.  Australia has banned guns, and they too have a burgeoning black market for firearms.  Criminals don't care what gun control laws you pass since they don't obtain their guns legally to begin with. 

>>94


lol @ sources.

>>95
lol@retards

As formerly highly competitive shooter during my high school years, Gun control laws would be... bad. 

It was a pain enough as it was that a kid accidentally shot the kid next to him while getting out of position in the last year of my shooting.  Because of that, new rules were made to make it harder to kill your neighbour (weed-wacker string all the way through the barrel, goggles (THEY DO NOTHING. And they were a pain, too), etc, etc).  They might not have seemed bad to a non-shooter, but when you're shooting, you're supposed to be in a mood without any, or many distractions.  Having to take care of safety controls just a few seconds before you shoot is a huge pain.

As much as I hated the rules, they were better than banning guns all around.  The problem with those rules, is that they're meant for controlled environments such as ranges, and can't be extended into the real world, where there are no range officers.

Banning guns altogether is just plain retarded.  I do, however agree with a bit of gun control, knowing the power of the guns and mishandlement that so many god damn people do with their guns.

>>94
>>96
You know, you're really not going to convince ANYBODY by linking to the NRA, regardless of accuracy contain therein.

99 GET

ban bullets

Just don't let blacks or mexicans have guns and problem solved.

>>98
I already have, and will likely continue to do so.  The fact that a source is biased does not mean it is incorrect. 

halliburton is please

d

>>102
the Dan Rather news group. ABC is negotitiating with Rosie O'Donnell to anchor their evening news.

Gun control is just another way for the government to demean the masses.