By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Arm Yourself: The Ultimate Gun Factsheet

Mr Khan on 20 December 2012
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

and SamualRSmith and I have already debunked his claim. and if you were to read or understand anything you disagree with, you would know this already. this fact sheet did not equate murder and suicide, if you were to read it you would know this.

Also no America does not have the highest violent crime rate. not even close. making things up again, are we?

and the point of this fact sheet which you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of what it says, does not only correlate gun ownership with crime. it does point out though that banning guns =/= equal lower crime. and more guns=/= higher crime. stat after stat after stat proves this

I did read it. I didn't see any debunking going on on your part; you're equating one very different kind of death with another.

I would be willing to agree that a gun ban is not going to necessarily lower crime rates.

Part of it is that i feel guns are a categorical evil, like all weapons.

 

Aren't you supposed to be a moral relativist?  Either way... I find this quote fun.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

 

 

 

Who said that?  Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi was an odd duck, belief-wise, and not just for saying that.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
killerzX on 20 December 2012
Panama said:
Mr Khan said:
Panama said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Panama said:
I'm terribly sorry, but I laughed too hard at the garbage spewed in there. The Japanese Myth in particular almost made me fall out of my seat. IF YOU TAKE AWAY GUNS AMERICA STILL HAS 3 TIMES THE MURDER RATE (truly something to brag about) BUT LOOK AT JAPANS SUICIDE RATES. Sorry but this is non sequitur garbage and propaganda.

Though I am inclined with those that believe that America should not instil stricter gun laws, I just felt like pointing out that this document is bad and it should feel bad.


I think the whole point of that was just to show removing guns we would still have a high murder rate. In fact most of the gun murders would be replace with another weapon of choice. If someone wants to kill someone they are going to do it. If someone want to commit suicide they are going to do. Gun or not.

I'm assuming the study was also looking at the correlation between suicide numbers and gun usage, which is a pointless study as you yourself stated people that wish to commit suicide will do so either way and has absolutely nothing to do with gun usage.

The thing is, showing that Americans have a higher tendency for murder without guns doesn't necessarily support their gun laws either. The findings of this document just feel nihlistic at times as opposed to taking a real stance to support Americans gun laws. I also wasn't a fan of the lack of more recent statistics, this document was published in 2012 after all, you would think they would have more recent data for UK and Aus instead of just 2006 unless I misread it. Surely editing wouldn't take that long.

To be fair, it does often take statisticians a while to compile this census-y stuff.

That's true. I just feel this document doesn't do the greatest job debunking a lot of these myths. It's just a really hard case to argue when America is consistently ranked as the highest developed country in the world for murders with firearms. Like I said earlier I don't believe strict gun laws will particularly resolve it. My qualm is purely with the document.


well its really like 2 countries. you have one half of the country were murder rates are extremely low, sub european levels, these  places are usually more rural and have significantly more legal guns, then you have the cities where crime is everywhere sometimes around levels of african nations. these places usually have very little legal gun ownership



Mr Khan on 20 December 2012
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 20 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
 

 

I did read it. I didn't see any debunking going on on your part; you're equating one very different kind of death with another.

I would be willing to agree that a gun ban is not going to necessarily lower crime rates.

Part of it is that i feel guns are a categorical evil, like all weapons.

 

Aren't you supposed to be a moral relativist?  Either way... I find this quote fun.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

 

 

 

Who said that?  Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi was an odd duck, belief-wise, and not just for saying that.

It's just Gahndi understood what i outlined above.

That striving to be better people only succeeds by striving to be better people.

It's why he never wanted his doctrine of nonviolence to be forced on anybody... he knew that was a big way to in fact hold back nonviolence as a principal.





the2real4mafol on 20 December 2012
Kasz216 said:

Also by the way... the argument isn't so much that guns cause suicides.

It's that guns are more effective at killing you then most other common suicide methods.

You take pills or something, you have some time for an "oh shit!" moment to call 911.

Guns, they kill you right away.

Still, seems like a pretty piss poor reason for banning guns. It's like banning hard liquor because it's easier to drink yourself to death with it then beer.  (Then again i suppose that's why moonshine is illegal.  Also why moonshine is as popular as it is.)

Its just as easy to jump off a skyscraper as it is to shoot yourself you know



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Around the Network
killerzX on 20 December 2012
the2real4mafol said:
I don't get it, you Americans are far too obsessed when it comes to your guns. 30 kids died because of how easy it is to get something that is designed to injure or kill.

Wherever you like it or not, what Obama is doing is the right thing to do. I don't know why people need an assault rifle like the AR-15 anyway, if you need a gun for "self-defense", just get a pistol or a baseball bat, that would work fine anyway. Screw the NRA!


no 20 kids died becuase somebody wanted to kill them, it could have been with any weapon. the deadliest school attack in US history happened without a gun, the deadliest attack on US soil happened without a gun. These kids are dead people of a murdered intent of murdering. and they may be alive today if it werent for laws making it near impossible for the to be defended by the adults around them.

also an AR-15 is not an assualt rifle. it isnt even high powered. the bullet it uses, is used to varment hunt, in many places its illegal to hunt deer with it because its too small of a caliber. the AR-15 only has a bad rep because its a scary black plastic and metal gun. if it had a nice wood grain to it no one would care.

and saying you should only have a pistol to defend yourself with is extremely naive. tell that to the korean shop owners that defended themselves with AR's during the LA riots. tell that to the police officers son that shot and killed home invaders with his dad AR, and saved himselve and his sister. there are many other stories like this. 

look at the viginia tech shooting, he killed 32, more than this one. did he use an AR, no he used 2 pistols.



Kasz216 on 20 December 2012
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:

Also by the way... the argument isn't so much that guns cause suicides.

It's that guns are more effective at killing you then most other common suicide methods.

You take pills or something, you have some time for an "oh shit!" moment to call 911.

Guns, they kill you right away.

Still, seems like a pretty piss poor reason for banning guns. It's like banning hard liquor because it's easier to drink yourself to death with it then beer.  (Then again i suppose that's why moonshine is illegal.  Also why moonshine is as popular as it is.)

Its just as easy to jump off a skyscraper as it is to shoot yourself you know

Not in rural Montana it isn't.



Mmmfishtacos on 20 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)

It was hypothetical i know. And a very unlikely scenario but not out of the realm  of possibility. What about the hunter feeding his family?



Mr Khan on 20 December 2012
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)

It was hypotical i know. And a very unlikey senario but not out of the relem of possiblity. What about the hunter feeding his family?

Hunting and other sports are the only point i would make concessions to guns on, but i would (in my perfect world) have those guns kept at some sort of central location (say a storage site on State Game lands) and not be in the homes of private citizens.

Although i doubt too many hunters at this point are doing it professionally (some, i know, but not many)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

killerzX on 20 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.

Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.

Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?

That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."

If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)

It was hypotical i know. And a very unlikey senario but not out of the relem of possiblity. What about the hunter feeding his family?

Hunting and other sports are the only point i would make concessions to guns on, but i would (in my perfect world) have those guns kept at some sort of central location (say a storage site on State Game lands) and not be in the homes of private citizens.

Although i doubt too many hunters at this point are doing it professionally (some, i know, but not many)

you really don't let facts get in the way of an emotion based argument, do you?