The only thing I want more of is more intensive background checks, and harsher gun laws on people who have been imprisoned.
Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You mean not allowing people convicted and imprisoned to own weapons?Marcus Kehoe said:
Do you think it matters what the crime was, whether it was violent or not?
Did I say that gun control reduces crime rates? Please, where did I say that? I said that if I used statistics incorrectly I could make it seem that way. I said our countries can't be compared because we're different in more than just gun laws.spartan231490 said:
I even went as far to agree with you that simply passing laws that increase gun control won't be enough to reduce violence. I said it takes a wiser man than me to find the solution to how to reduce violence. Fucking read my posts before you disagree with me.
I said we have strict gun control laws, we have a murder rate of 0.6, I said I like it like that. Not once did I say this is proof of gun control reducing violence.
My words. It doesn't prove anything. It makes for a compelling argument which I regarded as how you can twist statistics. I didn't bother to read your 40 page article, true. You didn't read my relatively short post.
It's not cato data, it's ATF. the two largest sources of illegal guns, as stated by the ATF are straw purchases and corrupt ffl dealers, neither of which is regulated by further gun control restrictions. So if you're saying that that data is libertarian and pro-gun, you're saying the ATF is libertarian and pro-gun. Pretty clear. Further, you're entire point here is an ad-hominem fallacy anyway. It doesn't make my point any less valid.Soundwave said:
the idea is to save lives. You want to legislate safety education, which would reduce accidental gun deaths. Since accidental falling deaths and accidental poisonings are more common, firearm safety classes are an in-efficient way of achieving the goal.SonOfVoorhees said:
I counter with logic, sourced facts, and respect, you counter with implicit insults and gut-feelings. Yeah, I'm the problem with these threads. Further, this is another ad hominem fallacy, even if it were true.
read about literacy tests. Go ahead. The government is provably untrustworthy with human rights. They are also in-efficient and wasteful, so why would we put them in charge.
false analogy. Cars are a leading cause of accidental death in US, guns are one of the least common causes of accidental death in US. They are incomparable
Straw man logical fallacy. I never said I was against safety tests. I in fact said I was all for them. I just said that I was against the government running these tests.
extensions of the government, who are proven to be at best incompetent, and at worst untrustworthy in these matter.
funny enough, it's not. Your thoughts, are not superior to my data, which I sourced.
as I said, there are a lot of unregulated objects that cause a lot more accidental deaths than guns. Why should some kid die because their parents keep their bleach in reach, or leave a ladder against the side of their house, or don't keep their chimney-flu properly clean? Your position is logically untenable unless you're going to regulate all the more frequent causes of accidental death before you regulate guns
I already did, I just disagreed with putting the government in charge of it, making this an irrelevancy fallacy. Out of curiosity, how many logical fallacies were you planning to use(I count four, is that what you were shooting for)? I already know you weren't planning to use any actual science, just gut feelings and maybe some anecdotal evidence.
Regardless, you might as well scrap driving licenses then? You will never stop stupid people from drink driving etc or just plain accidents. Thing is there would be way more accidents if no-one was told to take a test before hand. That is a fact. An you agree with the safety thing, thats great, i guess i took what you said as argumentative. So I guess its best to say some kind of gun safety test would be great.....in theory. Just the way to go about it is another discussion all together.spartan231490 said:
Yes, that's why I said "CATO's Spin", as in Spin Doctors. As in, "This is what the data says, but I'm saying what that data MEANS". Your point is INVALID because you're not checking your source material. There's this thing called "BIAS", that people have, which DIMINISHES the validity of their arguments.spartan231490 said:
I would not have even called CATO's record into question if I hadn't had previous experience with their WELL DOCUMENTED POLITICAL BIAS beforehand.
Seriously man, read the article, you cited! It states things like "because 45% of the people in our survey own guns, 45% of american households have guns". That kind of SPECIOUS reasoning is exactly why the "science!" you're claiming isn't that.
Why don't we require testing and training to own a gun? That's your original question? I talk about that right here:Ronack said:
I'm not even going to begin to discuss how flawed of an assumption it is to say that the ATF is powerless.spartan231490 said:
Well no matter what it should be harder, but in any case of violence it should be near impossible neh say for muzzleloaders.thaluikhain said:
still ad hominem, and therefore not valid in logical reasoningSoundwave said:
Actually, that's exactly how science works. Representative sampling to draw conclusions about the whole population. You aren't actually suggesting that someone survey every single American about this, are you? Furthermore, that data is irrelevant to the original discussion, an irrelevancy fallacy. The ATF data is what I posted that link for, and that doesn't come from a survey at all.
As I said, cars are a false analogy. They cause over 30,000 accidental deaths each year, guns cause less than 800 accidental deaths each year. They aren't remotely comparible. You're saying that we should impose regulations aimed at reducing the 800 accidental firearm fatalities each year instead of the approximately 15,000 firearm murders each year, or the approximately 25,000 firearm suicides each year in order to reduce firearm-related fatalities. That isn't like licencing drivers to reduce car-related fatalities, that's like licencing jacks users in order to reduce car-related deaths from them falling on people.SonOfVoorhees said:
The thing is, no matter how much gun control we place out there, people will always be able to get access to them and that just means that good people will not be able to defend themselves. Mexico has very tight gun laws but guns are everywhere. Prohibition does not work it never has, so the more control you exert over a group, the more they will want to break it. I think automatic weapons should not be for civilian use, but other than that I don't see why someone can't have a rifle or hand gun in their house as long as its properly registered and used.
I am in favor of better background checks. I see no reason not to do that.
I am in favor of better background checks. I see no reason not to do that.
Dave's Preposition: (I'm British, so I'll be drawing upon existing firearms laws in my country, which I happen to strongly agree with!)
1. Handguns should be completely outlawed.
This should be a no-brainer. Handguns, and other easily concealed weapons, are of limited use for sport shooting or hunting. Admittedly, there's a minor case when it comes to home defence, but when you look at the figures, almost every gun crime is committed using a pistol.
2. All guns must have fixed stocks, and a barrel at least 12 inches long.
Pretty much the same reasoning as rule 1.
3. All guns should be required by law to be stored in a locked contained and unloaded, and if possible, in such a way they cannot be easily fired
Ie, in the case of something like an AR15, the upper and lower receiver should be stored in separate locked containers. This will prevent gun theft, and drastically reduce the number of accidental gun injuries. Again, a no-brainer.
4. Ammunition should be limited to basic "ball" or "shot".
Obviously no one needs to hunting deer with expanding super-turbo-peneration incidenary ammo. A case could be made for civilian ownership of "less lethal" ammunition, but ultimately I feel that any round designed primarily for use against a human target should be illegal.
5. Anyone who wishes to own a firearm must be medically and psychologically fit to do so.
Another no-brainer. You wouldn't want someone who can't stop their trigger finger from twitching holding a loaded gun, and you certainly don't want someone prone to hallucination or paranoid delusions anywhere near a weapon.
1. Handguns should be completely outlawed.
This should be a no-brainer. Handguns, and other easily concealed weapons, are of limited use for sport shooting or hunting. Admittedly, there's a minor case when it comes to home defence, but when you look at the figures, almost every gun crime is committed using a pistol.
2. All guns must have fixed stocks, and a barrel at least 12 inches long.
Pretty much the same reasoning as rule 1.
3. All guns should be required by law to be stored in a locked contained and unloaded, and if possible, in such a way they cannot be easily fired
Ie, in the case of something like an AR15, the upper and lower receiver should be stored in separate locked containers. This will prevent gun theft, and drastically reduce the number of accidental gun injuries. Again, a no-brainer.
4. Ammunition should be limited to basic "ball" or "shot".
Obviously no one needs to hunting deer with expanding super-turbo-peneration incidenary ammo. A case could be made for civilian ownership of "less lethal" ammunition, but ultimately I feel that any round designed primarily for use against a human target should be illegal.
5. Anyone who wishes to own a firearm must be medically and psychologically fit to do so.
Another no-brainer. You wouldn't want someone who can't stop their trigger finger from twitching holding a loaded gun, and you certainly don't want someone prone to hallucination or paranoid delusions anywhere near a weapon.
apologies if somebody already said this but guns are not banned in the uk. Handguns and semi autos are but not guns as a whole.Desert Punk said:
You can actually own a .50 caliber rifle so long as it's super dooper certified and not semi auto.
I've used bolt action rifles and shotguns myself and I found it fun shooting at targets.
After a few hours I got bored of it though.
To answer the threads question, I draw the line at full automatic weapons and having magazines with a limit.
Wait a minute isn't this supposed to be in R&P? We have that section for a very, very, very, very, very good reason you know.
That being said, I'd prefer a permit system where people could have access to most things as long as they prove they have the expertise and fit the mental and physical requirements. That would be a bureaucratic nightmare though, so I'll draw the definite line at "military-grade, and all explosives."
That being said, I'd prefer a permit system where people could have access to most things as long as they prove they have the expertise and fit the mental and physical requirements. That would be a bureaucratic nightmare though, so I'll draw the definite line at "military-grade, and all explosives."
I'm saying that you can't just say: "It's biased because cato is bad." If you want to make an argument for the data I posted being bad, go ahead. So far, all you've done is expect me to dismiss the data because it was posted on a website that you consider to be biased. You haven't even made an argument to establish that the website is biased at all, which would still be ad hominem. You made absolutely no mention of why you think that the relevant ATF data that happens to be posted on this website is inaccurate, except that it has been posted on a website that you consider biased. If you want to dismiss it as invalid you need to make some argument to show that is flawed.Soundwave said:
1) handguns are used far more often for self defense than crime.Daverson said:
2) again, all your banning is effective self-defense. Unless you have a plan for taking these weapons away from criminals? And probably a plan that lets physically weaker people defend themselves against possibly armed, physically stronger attackers.
3) Now you're banning self-defense in the home, unless you're suggesting that home invaders supply warning far enough in advance for the homeowner to unlock his safe, put his AR-15 back together, and load it in time to defend himself.
4) Expanding highly engineered rounds are the norm for hunting. From the box of my cheap hunting ammo: "Core-Lokt Bullets are designed with a jacket and core that are mechanically "Lokt" together providing just the right combination of Expansion, Penetration, and Weight Retention for Deadly Hunting Performance." Besides, the idea that most crimes use some kind of hyper-advanced armor-penetrating, incendiary, or otherwise super-engineered rounds is fallacious. They're using basic hollow-points, which are usually far less engineered than hunting ammunition.
5) No one's really arguing here, though I do think that someone other than the government should be the one making the determination of who is fit enough. We wouldn't want another literacy test type fiasco. I'd suggest a civilian run organization, after all government officials have armed security, I don't think it's fair to let them make determinations on what is ok for use in self-defense for the rest of us.
Maybe you should read up a bit on the subject, you know, for science. How often firearms are used in self-defense: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Large scale international study into the effectiveness of gun control in reducing murder and suicide rates. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Some information on the "gun-show loophole": http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows Large amount of facts about gun death and gun control: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Some mass shooting data: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ How criminals get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html And lastly an opinion piece offering a logical explanation for why gun ownership is a good thing: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
A lot of people like gun control for emotional reasons. It's nice to think that with just a few strokes of a pen your government could take the guns out of the hands of criminals, because who wants to be on the receiving end of a bullet? It's nice to think that we can do something about all those senseless deaths in places like Newtown. However, just because a law makes you feel good doesn't mean that it will work as intended, and the overwhelming majority of the data on the topic supports loose restrictions and high gun ownership.