2013-01-20, 01:44 | Link #1263 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
Quote:
Innocent until proven guilty. The woman had no right to shoot them. Not even police had any right to shoot at anyone (since they are assumed innocent) before they are judged guilty by court. |
|
2013-01-20, 12:12 | Link #1266 | |||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, are you saying that you expect the US people to get assistance from other countries if our president becomes a dictator? That our best hope is to annoy him for 27 years and he, the government, and the military that is against us... will just leave? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Look, in the best case of armed personnel at a school, the shooter *still* manages to kill someone people before being shot. In the best case of banning/heavily regulating... that person might kill or injure one or two people with a knife, before being subdued. And you're forgetting all those teachers and administrators who are NOT comfortable using a gun, or having one near their children. Would you propose shoving a gun into their hand anyway? Force them to do something they don't want? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your job is to attack the source, not wikipedia. You can attack wikipedia when there is no source, or when the source is wrong or does not give the information wikipedia quotes it has having. You currently have not done any of this. Quote:
In one chapter, they dissect the methods of the gun control movement and conclude, perhaps with some reason, that the limited gun control measures currently being sought are part of a strategy toward banning all handguns. But this position is derided as the result of the "absolutist" and "prohibitionist" views of "anti-gun zealots." The authors argue that this zealotry has pushed the NRA into opposing even moderate gun controls, such as licensing and registration, for fear of eventually losing their right to own guns. Their attack on the "liberal media bias" may convince some readers, but the authors take it to a ridiculous extreme: the media's depiction of gun owners is a "bigoted stereotype that would be recognized and denounced as such if directed against gays, Jews, African-Americans or virtually any group other than gun owners." - Publishers Weekly Huh, where have I heard the term "liberal media bias" before... Fox news, was it? I gotta say, when they hit such notes, it doesn't bode well for their cause. In any event, they don't seem as even-handed as they might claim. Found this pro-gun review, too, which talks about how great the book is, and has this gem: "The book contains chapters on all the important topics. Kates begins with an excellent review of the role played by doctors and medical publications. He demolishes the fake studies and exposes the hijacking of medical research to support a political agenda. Numerous quotes document the often ludicrous claims of anti-gun "researchers" and the blatant censorship of information by medical journals. His use of the term, "overt mendacity" is a polite way of saying that the anti-gun doctors simply lied." Wow, all those medical doctors are lying? They are involved in a huge conspiracy? Why isn't the media reporting on this!? Oh, that's because it is the liberal media, and they are complicit, right? Every single doctor and media person (other than Fair and Balanced Fox news) is in on the great conspiracy! And yes, it has to be a conspiracy, because any "lying" on medical papers will be caught, or exposed in another paper. Never underestimate the ego of a scientist, who can show up another scientist by showing him to be wrong. I'll let people judge for themselves, this book and what it says. And I shall read through it myself when it arrives, but I gotta say, I have my doubts. Now, are you going to read through all 15 sources on wikipedia? Quote:
After all, I want my right to bear arms to defend myself and my family from possible government tyranny, and the government has planes and helicopters and drones. You know, I'll close with this: "So this isn't really about the constitution or efficacy of regulation or intruder defense. it's about how perilously close some people in this country feel they are living to a tyrant's rule.... But now I get it, now I see what's happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year. Because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler." - Jon Stewart, Scapegoat Hunter Last edited by Kaijo; 2013-01-20 at 13:25. |
|||||||||||||
2013-01-20, 14:35 | Link #1268 |
Banned
|
You know, I have an interesting question for gun owners. A sort of "what would you do in this situation" kind of thing.
Let's say another "terrorist" attack happens, maybe multiple ones at the same time, all involving al quaida sympathizers who shoot up various places at the same time: schools, hospitals, train stations, airports, etc. Several hundred to a thousand people die. In response to this, a majority of the population finally pushes Congress into enacting a gun ban. You can own a single air rifle if you wish, but have to have a license and a thorough background check. And before you ask, they get around the 2nd amendment by saying that, yes, someone can have other guns, but only if they are in a state-sanctioned militia unit. They argue that knives are arms, too, and thus they aren't truly infringing because you can still have arms, just not guns (except the aforementioned air rifle... and we'll throw in a musket, too). So, congress passes these laws, and thus the police and the feds go out through the country collecting all the guns. So, your nightmare scenario is here, and it is something the majority of the populace want (call it 51% if you want). They are now knocking on your door, and have come for your guns, as the fear has been stated often enough. What do you do? Do you hand them over and continue to fight in the system to get the law repealed? Do you shoot, or threaten to shoot the feds at your door? Do you disappear into the countryside with fellow gun owners and hide, while working up a guerilla unit? I am trying to understand what exactly gun owners plan to accomplish, in the oft-stated nightmare scenario, but tweaking it a bit to make it a bit more realistic. Help me to understand what it is you would hope to accomplish, and what your plan of action would be. |
2013-01-20, 14:59 | Link #1269 | |||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is why there's no "penis crime" when it comes to rape, or "fist crime" under battery, "knife crime" in a stabbing etc. As for being made-up... well, technically every term in every language is made up by someone, but I think what he was getting to was that anti-gunners tends to use the term with an implication that those crimes were caused by guns - and not the person using them. Quote:
We've banned alcohol before only to have it backfire in the most spectacular fashion back in our face; We've banned drugs - with the same result, slower perhaps, but no less spectacular. But hey, what the hell, just because mass banning has never worked before doesn't mean we shouldn't keep doing it. Quote:
All too often this is what you see: US have more guns than UK > US have more gun deaths than UK > gun causes deaths. which would be fine if the US and UK were two lab mice and guns are viruses, but quickly becomes problematic if you apply it to the real world, where there are far more factors that influences human behaviors. Quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...cience/308269/ There are few things in the world as malleable as statistics. and as much as I like Jon Stewart, he's no more of an expert on this issue than any of us. but since he raised that 30k figure again, I figure I'll ask you this: Why not ban alcohol(75k+ deaths, 10-20k from drunk driving) and cigarettes (300k deaths, 58k+ from second hand smoke)? alcohol ban has been tried once before, but there was the AWB, and cigarettes certainly have never been banned before - will you support a ban on alcohol and cigarettes? Setting aside the sheer impossibility of your scenario (it's about as likely as the new Red Dawn movie), the first thing that would come would be a legal challenge, the second part would be... well, nothing - long guns are not registered in michigan, they can't seize what they don't know. Although I have to say that if the US ever devolves into a place where you have the police going house-to-house kicking down door to take everyone's gun... it's probably time to move to another country. Last edited by kyp275; 2013-01-20 at 15:12. |
|||||
2013-01-20, 15:23 | Link #1271 |
Banned
|
Kyp, once again, you're dodging (and the post I made was in reply to someone else, not you). If you're not going to straight-forward address things, then don't bother to reply. In fact, the mods already spoke on you and me, which I decided to abide by. So, partly that, and partly that you didn't really address my honest inquiry, then I am going to refrain from addressing your posts. I only make this post, so that everyone else understands why I am not going to address your post responses. In fact, I already answered your alcohol question once before, so that kinda shows that you aren't really reading my posts. In such an atmosphere, it is impossible to have any discussion.
|
2013-01-20, 15:36 | Link #1272 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In comparison, there was the assault weapons ban, that also didn't work, so under your logic, why should it be tried again? Hell, let's just remove the alcohol part all together and make it even simpler. Why not ban cigarettes? oh, and while you're at it, let's do a reverse of what you were doing: please show me a study that scientifically shows irrefutably that gun ownership is the root cause of the violent crimes and murders in the US, while taking into account population density, social-economic situation - ie. an actual comprehensive look on the whole picture. shhhh, haven't you heard? any law is worth trying if it can save even one life!! Last edited by kyp275; 2013-01-20 at 15:50. |
||||
2013-01-20, 15:42 | Link #1273 | |
reading #hikaributts
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
But the sin taxes are IMO a good reason for not banning tobacco and alcohol |
|
2013-01-20, 15:49 | Link #1274 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
After all the definition of appeasement is as follows (not from wikipedia, I do not consider them a valid source of information): 1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king. 2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger. 3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles. You have ended your own argument because the gun control side of this argument is the appeasement side. They are the ones attempting to criminalize 80,000,000+ people and threatening to use force against them if they don't comply by registering and turning in their weapons. The constitutional side of this isn't the one that is the aggressor, they are the ones defending their rights that were established 220+ years ago. The lawful side of the argument is the one protecting a portion of the law which already exists within the US Constitution, the appeasement side is attempting to undermine that law through inferior statutory acts as a means of neutralizing the 2nd amendment without going through the proper constitutional process. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You see, the standard is what infantry use, I am of the opinion that the 2nd amendment has already been violated with Reagan's FOPA of 1986. Quote:
It isn't likely and thus not a concern so long as the political party in power does not attempt to deprive the citizens of their right to a Republican form of government and/or infringe on the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It would be a counterinsurgency operation and the US doesn't do well against those, and never has. Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc, have all proven how poorly large scale mechanized groups are against small decentralized guerilla groups. Thus you need to educate yourself on the guerilla wars of the 20th century before you make such silly statements. Quote:
You forget that an all volunteer military isn't there to impose the will of a dictator, it is there to protect its people. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you choose to be a victim that is your business, but you have NO right to ask anyone to give up their arms to join you. Quote:
Or are you saying that the police should be disarmed as well, since they deal with more violent crime than murder and they're armed with real assault rifles, grenades, and use standard size magazines? I already ommitted the minor crimes listed in the UK home office crime report for 2010. The Telegraph did the same thing and said so right at the begining of their article. Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power. This isn't about your red herring of shop lifting, this is about violent crime with a weapon (rape, murder, robbery). And yes the UK has a higher rate and you can't handle that fact becuase it destroyed your argument. Quote:
They are lying, and attempting to twist the facts to fit their agenda. You parrotting their lies only makes you look foolish. Quote:
Disarming the popluation would do nothing to stop a determined madman, since gasoline, and other weapons can be just as effective if not moreso. On top of this, the campus police at VT were not patrolling classrooms, they patrol the grounds and respond to calls for help. If there is one thing all of these attacks from the 1764 Pontiac Rebellion Massacre onwards, teaches us is that they are SUPRISE attacks. That means you have to have an active defender right there at the place and moment of attack to stop an active shooter. Police cannot help with that, they are responders not defenders. Get that though your head. Here is what we need more of, even though he didn't fire his weapon: At Fort Hood, that was a gun free area, all administration areas in the military are, and no gun control law would have stopped the Ft. Hood incident since the perp was a military soldier. The military already has strict gun control and it did nothing to stop the terrorist attack. So once again your argument crumbles all around you. You keep shoving out the strawmen and red herrings to no avail. In short, you can't bullshit me. Quote:
Norway. They have laws far, far stricter than the United States yet Anders Breivik shot and killed 77 people. Lot of good gun control did there huh? Or how about the taxi driver in the UK that went ballistic over a decade after their gun control laws passed? He killed 12 people in Cumbria, UK. Quote:
Those teachers are responsible for those children while they are in their care, and that means protecting them with a gun. Quote:
It is identical to Edward Bernays' "Torches of Freedom." Quote:
It is ILLEGAL to send firearms across state lines without going through an FFL dealer. An FFL dealer cannot sell weapons or accessories that are banned in one state from a state where they are not banned. Also, a firearm or reciever (not even a complete weapon) MUST go from one FFL dealer to another across state lines, and thus every transaction has to go through a background check when arms cross state lines legally. What you're illustrating is the illegal transfer of arms and no gun law has been able to stop that since 1968. So all you've done is prove that gun control doesn't work. Good job. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Professor Kleck used to be the loudest voice against John Lott until he went through and examined the facts of this issue. It caused Professor Kleck to change his mind and realize that there is in fact a bias within the medical community. And why wouldn't there be? They only see the criminal portion of this issue, not the number of firearms that actually save lives. That's not conspiracy, that is simply a bias due to profession. Quote:
I checked through the 52 sources of the article you linked to on wackypedia: 1.^ Carter, Gregg Lee (2002). Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 262. ISBN 1-57607-268-1. 2.^ Theodore, Larissa (2008-03-29). "GUNS: A RIGHT OR A SOCIETAL ILL?". Beaver County Times and Allegheny Times. "Gun violence by definition is people breaking the law, and drugs are a huge part of it in inner cities...It's not the gun that is causing them to commit the act." 3.^ Courtesy link to archive.org copy of Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence: Statistics 4.^ Encyclopedia of Public Health: Gun Control 5.^ Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence: Kids and Gun Violence 6.^ "About us," Brady Center to Prevent Violence, undated 7.^ "Targeting Criminals, not Gun Owners," NRA-ILA; 8/17/06 8.^ a b "2011 Global Study on Homicide". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Retrieved 2012-12-18. 9.^ Cook, Philip J., Gun Violence: The Real Cost, Page 29. Oxford University Press, 2002 10.^ Committee on Law and Justice (2004). "Executive Summary". Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academy of Science. ISBN 0-309-09124-1. 11.^ Kellermann, A.L., F.P. Rivara, G. Somes, et al. (1992). "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership". New England Journal of Medicine 327 (7): pp. 467–472. doi:10.1056/NEJM199208133270705. PMID 1308093. 12.^ Kellermann, AL, Rivara FP, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM 327:7 (1992):467-472. 13.^ Miller, Matthew and Hemenway, David (2001). Firearm Prevalence and the Risk of Suicide: A Review. Harvard Health Policy Review. p. 2. "One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g. where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the association lost its statistical significance when additional countries were included." 14.^ Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig (2000). "Chapter 2". Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513793-0. 15.^ Ikeda, Robin M., Rachel Gorwitz, Stephen P. James, Kenneth E. Powell, James A. Mercy (1997). Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994: Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3. National Center for Injury and Prevention Control. 16.^ "Suicide in the U.S.A.". American Association of Suicidology. 17.^ Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 (1): pp. 3–36. doi:10.1177/0022427803256229. NCJ 203876. "Studies that attempt to link the gun ownership of individuals to their experiences as victims (e.g., Kellermann, et al. 1993) do not effectively determine how an individual's risk of victimization is affected by gun ownership by other people, especially those not living in the gun owner's own household." 18.^ Lott, John, John E. Whitley (2001). "Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime". Journal of Law and Economics 44 (2): pp. 659–689. doi:10.1086/338346. "It is frequently assumed that safe-storage laws reduce accidental gun deaths and total suicides. We find no support that safe-storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides." 19.^ United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. "Global Burden of Armed Violence". 20.^ Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Guns are the weapon of choice", Associated Press, 2011. 21.^ "Questionnaire for the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 22.^ a b "The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000)". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Retrieved 2008-06-19. 23.^ WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999 - 2005, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 24.^ Henry E. Schaffer, Don Kates and William B. Waters IV: Public Health Pot Shots--How the CDC succumbed to the Gun "Epidemic." Reason Magazine 25.^ Pro-Gun Groups & Anti-Gun Groups--Does Anti-Gun Researcher David Hemenway Have Something To Hide? NRA-ILA, 3/24/06 26.^ Australia — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law gunpolicy.org 27.^ Guns in Azerbaijan gunpolicy.org 28.^ Guns in Barbados gunpolicy.org 29.^ Guns in Belarus gunpolicy.org 30.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Gun Laws Comparison gunpolicy.org 31.^ a b c d e f g 1999 figures; 2000 figures not available 32.^ Guns in Chile gunpolicy.org 33.^ Guns in Denmark gunpolicy.org 34.^ 1998 figures; 1999 and 2000 figures not available 35.^ NDR: Grundwissen privater Waffenbesitz 36.^ Hungarian Weapons Law davekopel.org 37.^ Guns in Paraguay gunpolicy.org 38.^ Guns in Poland gunpolicy.org 39.^ Guns in Portugal gunpolicy.org 40.^ Guns in Qatar gunpolicy.org 41.^ Guns in Slovakia gunpolicy.org 42.^ Guns in Slovenia gunpolicy.org 43.^ Guns in Spain gunpolicy.org 44.^ Guns in Ukraine gunpolicy.org 45.^ Guns in Uruguay gunpolicy.org 46.^ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicide Statistics web page; 2011 Global Study on Homicide - Homicides by firearm statistics data Excel spreadsheet, with figures to 2010. Accessed 5 January 2012 47.^ "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Crime Data". 48.^ "The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey". Violence and Victims 15 (3): 257–272. 2000. 49.^ a b Cook, Philip J. (2000). Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford University Press. ISBN ISBN 0-19-513793-0.. 50.^ Crime Is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. Oxford University Press. 1997. ISBN 0-19-513105-3. 51.^ Annest JL, Mercy JA, et al. "National Estimates of Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg." JAMA 273:22 (1995):1749-1754. 52.^ Garbarino, James. "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence: Analysis and Recommendations". Princeton-Brookings. Wow, let's see how impartial those wiki sources are shall we? First I'll list the Gun Control Advocate groups/individuals used by highlighting them in red on the list above. Greg Lee Carter is a member of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Philip J. Cook is a contributor to the Brady Campaign. David Hemmenway is a member of the Joyce Foundation (gun control group). Dr. Author Kellerman is a contributor to the Brady Campaign. There are 26 citations from gun control groups and their sympathizers. Now I'll highlight the 2nd amendment rights groups and their contributors in blue. Gary Kleck, John Lott, Don kates, and David Kopel are thrown into the blue category since they support the facts about the 2nd amendment and this issue. There are only 6 cited. The rest are "neutrals/unknowns" and they comprise only 19 citations. As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, wikipedia is bias to the extreme. Now, don't cite wikipedia again to me because I will dismiss it out of hand as propaganda. Quote:
I've already shown you numerous times what constitutes a weapon for the common defense. A surface-to-air missile system is crew served and is NOT useful for the common defense. Or do you not know what a SAS is? That is a SAS. Or did you mean a shoulder-launch anti-aircraft rocket? Because there is a huge difference between those. If you meant a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile, then no, it has no use for putting down an insurrection, nor upholding the laws of the union. It may be useful to repel an invasion, but not necessary. Now, I will not enterain your inane question again, so don't ask it, or I will ignore it. Quote:
Quote:
Yet you'd dis Professor Gary Kleck or John Lott? Yeah, you're not bias on this issue are you Kaijo?
__________________
Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2013-01-20 at 16:05. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013-01-20, 15:54 | Link #1276 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even if we remove the self-inflicted portion, that brings gun down to what, 10-12k, alcohol to 10-20k (drunk driving), and smoking to 58k (second hand smoke), which IMO is still a valid comparison. |
|||
2013-01-20, 16:34 | Link #1277 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Um ... smoking and alcohol DO kill or hurt other people than the user. Second-hand smoke. Income diversion of lower income people from necessities. Driving while intoxicated. Committing violence while intoxicated.
All social arguments for banning (though we tried that already). We're having more luck with smoking with group consensus and social adaptation. Random note: I find the inclusion of a shooter as one of the dead in a murders/suicide to be misleading.
__________________
|
2013-01-20, 16:47 | Link #1278 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Wikipedea is a source to get to sources. It is those sources cited that would need checking. It can be useful, though not as much on hot political subjects because it can be censored by the users. If the sources cited pan out, it where it can be useful.
Though in watch the back and forth, I am under the impression that the best way to provide information to Kaijo at this time would be to provide sources for pretty much everything one mentions and perhaps have an extended bibliography at the bottom. As a historian I should be doing that, but I am very much out of practise. If nothing else it would give a scientist papers and studies to go though, which has been what has been asked for. Bias does not seem to be an issue, just send it all so it can be reviewed and let the scentific method proceed in that case. The rest of you seem to have more issues with what bias is being used by whatever author or group. But let the scientist have everything, since that was what was stated to be desired to form or reform an opinion. Such an act might also reduced the back and forth that sometimes gets heated, or sometimes gets redundant. Also it would provide others with sources they might not be aware of prior to the posting as we've seem there seems to be a very wide gap in what people think when it came to handheld weapons and the incidents that they have been involved in the last 100 years or so. Plus gaps in government knowledge when it comes to the US Constitution, US Law, and how the sytem is suppose to work. Also the realites of scale. There was a small debate on the police and size of the United States. I would point out that even urban areas in the Western states are very spread out. Urban Sprawl is a fact out here. We build cities outwards for many miles rather than building up into skyscrapers like they do on the East Coast or in older cities in Europe where they are building in defined areas existing hundreds of years and contained by the city or towns next to them. Out here you have uban areas built in what was the wilderness and have been expanding into it for a hundred years or more. Just check out places like Los Angeles that's urban area has spread to something that is nearly the size of say Israel. A large part of that is under the LAPD, and they are notorious for not understanding the people they are serving. Some claim it is because they have been a patrol car force since nearly the beginning of the 20th century due to the scale of the area they patrol. This as oppse to police that walk there patrols who get to know people. In LA, the cops don't have time to know people...they patrol in their cars. They are quite armed though, but since they don't know the people all that well, they do not always know who is suppose to be there and who is not.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2013-01-20 at 16:57. |
2013-01-20, 16:53 | Link #1279 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Yes, but second hand smoke is not a crime of commission, no one thinks "I'm going to roast that guy's ass with this smoke".
Likewise, no one starts to drink thinking "I'm going to go out driving and kill me some pedestrians". And, of course, it's still not a valid comparison, because we do pass laws to reduce the likelihood of those things causing deaths: RE second hand smoke: In most western countries and American state workplace smoking bans are now in effect. Most people do not have to be exposed to second hand smoke in the course of their work. Being exposed to second hand smoke is now pretty much restricted to within homes. RE Drunk driving: It is an arrestable offence! We have carried out anti-drunk driving campaigns to in order to reduce drunk driving deaths (And they have worked! We have less drunk driving deaths now then at any time in the last 50 years!). For instance barmen are in many places now allowed to knowingly serve alcohol to someone who is over the limit, and they know will be driving. They are also legally obligated to provide non-alcoholic beverages in order to facilitate designated drivers. Whereas for guns, in the last 10 years, the USA has done NOTHING to try to reduce gun related deaths. In fact, what few restrictions there were have been gutted at the behest of the gun lobby, and so we are where we are at now. |
2013-01-20, 16:59 | Link #1280 | |||||||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Cigarettes? Actually, you'd get no argument from me about banning them, since second hand smoke has a harmful effect on others. And thus I'd be willing to try a cigarette ban, and see if it works. Just as I am willing to try a gun ban and see if it works. Now, if I was a gun nut, I'd be saying, "No! We shouldn't try something to see if it works!" Because I'd be a gun nut then, instead of a scientist who wants to experiment and see if something works or not. It's not like there are a hundred other countries out there who have a gun ban or heavy regulation and thus dramatically lower deaths via guns. Oh wait... Quote:
You know, if I decide we need people to protect us from a tyrannical government gone out of control, I'll be damn sure that it isn't you. You're going to get me killed. "Don't worry, Saddam would never drop chemical weapons on us." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, there is one more option: I could shoot you. Walk up behind you and pull the trigger, and you'd be dead. Your gun being precious little defense against me. Wouldn't you agree? Sure, someone *might* shoot me eventually... but I could have your family dead by then, too. That is the world you want to live in. I don't. And there are many more people waking up to that possibility. And instead of going, "Yeah, this kinda sucks. In order to empathize, I'll agree, let's try some heavy regulation for awhile and see if it works" you'd rather say, "Screw you, you ain't takin' my guns!" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I've changed my mind, don't bother. To you, anyone who comes to a conclusion that more gun regulation is needed is, by definition, biased. And probably a part of the liberal leftist media. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But yeah, I'm biased. If I have to be, I guess I'm biased in favor of those who routinely save lives and have a strong feeling about wanting to prevent more deaths. If there is a giant conspiracy of doctors, and I had to choose, I think I'd pick the conspiracy of doctors, over the gun nut crowd. One of those groups saves vastly more lives every day, then the other does. Call me crazy, but that's the side I'm gonna take. You know what? I give up. Fine, I'll admit it. We're only here to take your guns. I'm in on it, the doctors are in on it, the scientists are in on it, the media is in on it, the government is in on it... we're all against you, and trying to take your guns, and we'll twist anything and make up any numbers we want to accomplish it. And only you, and your brave little plucky band of gun owners, are the only thing standing in our way. Curses! Edit: Ithekro, it's not so much that I want annotations and a bibliography for everything, just that I base my beliefs upon the scientific evidence gathered thus far. So, if someone wants to change my mind, they have to prove the evidence false. If they have problems with my sources, they are welcome to knock them out. Of course, the only real argument against them so far, has been; "They're biased! Or cannot possibly be correct because there is so much data that no human could possibly gather or correlate it all!" or "The US is different than everyone else because we're special! You can't compare us to any other English countries like Canada or the UK or Australia, etc." Which aren't really arguments to a scientist. People are welcome to put forth arguments without sources, it's just that, odds are, it won't convince me. Show me a study that goes through numbers, shows it's methodologies, and allow me to judge it. Because, right now, I'm relying on multiple, multi-year studies by various scientific journals, the UN, and the FBI's own numbers. As well as looking at every other country on Earth to see what has worked elsewhere, and what hasn't. But apparently that's a no-no because Americans are dumber or something. I might almost agree with that. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|