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. 

>>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.