The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Ravea]

No, no, they don't. In fact, I proved rather clearly through statistics that are far, far more likely to do the opposite, even if you are only counting people you care about.

Can you prove that guns are used in more than 2.5 million accidents?

Guns kill people.

I'm calling BS. A gun doesn't kill you, it's the person pulling the trigger.

Neither guns nor people kill people.

Bullets kill people.

[Demented Tigers]

Also, for those who keep saying that crime has gone up since the UK made laws against guns, it was temporary.

The UK has less violent crime than the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_r ... per-capita

The crazy bit is that England even has more overall crime by a little bit. Interesting how the lack of guns doesn't actually get everyone killed. Even if we propose that the crime is higher because they don't have guns, given the choice between a few more robberies in exchange for less violence or the other way around, that's not a tough choice.

I'm not saying that it has more violent crime per capita. I'm just saying it went up 89% of the course of a decade. That's not temporary.

"In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom Taken from the 'Firearms Crime' section which is referenced to a piece produced by the Home Office)

Oooo, scary stuff all this increased gun crime we have over here!

[Jocabia]

That would only be relevant if it meant that the risk to an individual was so significant that it would eventually hit everyone. That's why smoking is a good comparison.

Even if I could cite twenty people I know that have never had a smoking related illness and are nearly 100 years old, it wouldn't negate the statistical probability of a problem

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

There is also a probability you'll be murdered every time you're at home. You're at home every day. How many of your family members have been murdered? By similar numbers you should be murdered by now? Must not be a murder problem, eh? Or, once again, you don't understand statistics.

The smoking comparison is an interesting one.

Flawed, but interesting.

Smoking kills, or significantly alters the health of all those who participate in it if done so properly and correctly. Handling a firearm properly and RESPONSIBLY is safe. If you are safe and responsible, there is a 0% chance of you being killed, maimed or injured by a firearm. When you start cutting corners, get lax with safety, or intentionally misuse a firearm, thats when problems occur, which has been my point all along. And you are blaming the object, rather than the real problem. . . .

The problem is when you misuse them. (And getting back to your smoking analogy, as far as I know, there is no safe way to smoke and guarantee that your health wont be impacted. Ine ffect, the proper way to use tobacco is to misuse it.) The CHOICE to misuse a gun is like the choice to misuse anything. Its not caused by, nor influenced by the type of weapon. Its the HUMAN who misuses it. It is the HUMAN who is deciding to go against the moral and legal codes and do harm to someone else. If someone shoots you, do they arrest the gun? If someone slashes your throat, do they imprison the knife? If someone hangs you with a piece of rope, do they execute the rope via lethal injection?

No. They deal with the person who misused those items to the fullest extent of the law.

The purpose of gun regulation is to ensure that guns are only used properly and responsibly. It's good to know you support such laws.

Unless you think there should be special Kraz laws.

The problem with guns that are misused is that they kill OTHER people. You might find this surprising the government has an interest in regulating a product that is more likely to cause harm than provide any positve effects. That you exist doesn't have one bit of effect on those statistics.

And the interesting bit that you're missing, and it's pretty obviously intentional, is that the statistics are not based on you mishandling the weapon every time. They're based on all people, many, many of who handle the weapon correctly every time except once. If your time comes, we'll likely never hear you tell us about. And if it doesn't, it will be you will be a part of the statistical probability relating to the probability of guns in the home causing an accident or providing protection. That's the beautiful thing about actually looking at all of the people who use guns and not just one single case.

See, that's called statistical analysis. Your story, if it were true, would still be just one of millions of stories. Some match yours. Many don't.

So should gun laws be based on you (which would be a biased sample) or should they be laws based on EVERYONE in the US?

[Demented Tigers]

I'm calling BS. A gun doesn't kill you, it's the person pulling the trigger.

You can't call BS on that. It's all semantics.

People kill people physically, or through the use of an object. The gun still kills you. It causes a bullet to pass through the body causing damage. it was your body's inability to cope with severe injuries that killed you. Or it was the bullet that killed you. Or it was the gun that killed you because it fired the bullet. or it was the person that killed you because it was their intent, and their finger pulling the trigger.

Guns kill people. People kill people. Why not remove a devastating and easy way in which people can kill people?

[Demented Tigers]

I'd site England; yet that seems a little redundant.

Cite England why?

[Jocabia]

I'd site England; yet that seems a little redundant.

Cite England why?

Because of their rise in crime. Unfortunately, even with this rise, they still have less violent crime than US by about two thirds. Not the best example, but so far every example he's given has turned out to turn against. For example, his mandatory gun law town has more crime than the town that it made those laws in reaction to.

[Jocabia]

I'm calling BS. A gun doesn't kill you, it's the person pulling the trigger.

You can't call BS on that. It's all semantics.

People kill people physically, or through the use of an object. The gun still kills you. It causes a bullet to pass through the body causing damage. it was your body's inability to cope with severe injuries that killed you. Or it was the bullet that killed you. Or it was the gun that killed you because it fired the bullet. or it was the person that killed you because it was their intent, and their finger pulling the trigger.

Guns kill people. People kill people. Why not remove a devastating and easy way in which people can kill people?

People don't kill people,. It's the chemical reactions that do it.

[Demented Tigers]

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all.

'The majority of people are good.' So by definition, the minority of people are bad. Of that minority lets remove the people that are bad within the law (you know, just generally horrible to people, never help anyone, rude etc.). Then remove the people who are bad outside of the law, but only in small, petty ways. Then white collar criminals. Then unarmed blue collar criminals, followed by small armed, then armed. That's a small number of people compared to the rest of the population. Hardly a major risk in day to day life. Also criminals don't get a criminal record until they are caught. There must be criminals without a record running around buying guns legally, and then selling them on. A bit easier? A lot easier.

Because all criminals: Pay income taxes, pay taxes for whatever place they live in, pay they're bills, pay parking fines, pay extra fees, ect. So yes, being a criminal is a bit cheaper than living as a law-abiding citizen. Also, I'm in economics and majoring in it, so I think I'm aware of economics. Now, those economic models do work; except for one basic economic force: The Black Market. A black market might be a place to sell illegally high priced good; yet it's also a market set up to sell contraband. Now, while a law abiding citizen will not purchase items that are contraband unless absolutely necessary for survival or such, a criminal has no problem purchasing said goods. Also, as I've stated before, a criminal also has no problem producing said guns that criminals will use in a criminal act. Also, noting that breaking any law that stands in they're way is no problem for a criminal, gun control still doesn't apply to anyone who's supposed to be affected by gun control.

We are talking about normal people who break the law, not super-villains! Criminals aren't all or nothing. They pay taxes etc. so they don't get caught by standing out. Minimise risk by only breaking the laws you have to. Your talking about fantasy villains or the bosses of organised crime.

[Jocabia]

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all.

'The majority of people are good.' So by definition, the minority of people are bad. Of that minority lets remove the people that are bad within the law (you know, just generally horrible to people, never help anyone, rude etc.). Then remove the people who are bad outside of the law, but only in small, petty ways. Then white collar criminals. Then unarmed blue collar criminals, followed by small armed, then armed. That's a small number of people compared to the rest of the population. Hardly a major risk in day to day life. Also criminals don't get a criminal record until they are caught. There must be criminals without a record running around buying guns legally, and then selling them on. A bit easier? A lot easier.

Because all criminals: Pay income taxes, pay taxes for whatever place they live in, pay they're bills, pay parking fines, pay extra fees, ect. So yes, being a criminal is a bit cheaper than living as a law-abiding citizen. Also, I'm in economics and majoring in it, so I think I'm aware of economics. Now, those economic models do work; except for one basic economic force: The Black Market. A black market might be a place to sell illegally high priced good; yet it's also a market set up to sell contraband. Now, while a law abiding citizen will not purchase items that are contraband unless absolutely necessary for survival or such, a criminal has no problem purchasing said goods. Also, as I've stated before, a criminal also has no problem producing said guns that criminals will use in a criminal act. Also, noting that breaking any law that stands in they're way is no problem for a criminal, gun control still doesn't apply to anyone who's supposed to be affected by gun control.

We are talking about normal people who break the law, not super-villains! Criminals aren't all or nothing. They pay taxes etc. so they don't get caught by standing out. Minimise risk by only breaking the laws you have to. Your talking about fantasy villains or the bosses of organised crime.

Even super-villians have to either rent or own property. Even super-villians have bills. The concept is patently absurd.

[Demented Tigers]

I'd site England; yet that seems a little redundant.

Cite England why?

Because of their rise in crime. Unfortunately, even with this rise, they still have less violent crime than US by about two thirds. Not the best example, but so far every example he's given has turned out to turn against. For example, his mandatory gun law town has more crime than the town that it made those laws in reaction to.

I live in England, and while I have 'heard' of one or two shootings I have never witnessed one, and the people I heard it from didn't witness it either. Come to think of it, I did know one person who was shot actually. Drive-by with a airsoft gun... Don't worry, it was non fatal Another thing is the only gun crime you hear about is either between rival gangs in certain areas of cities (therefore the people getting shot have 'earned it' one way or another), or fleeing unarmed buglers being shot in the back (and the homeowner being prosecuted).

[Krazniastan]

So... ban people? Maybe banning a means by which people can all to easily kill people would be more feasible.

I can take a truck, and crash it into a crowded restaurant, and kill a whole lot of people. More than say walking into the restaurant and opening fire.

Easier? More feasible? Got to go with the truck. I can buy, steal, or borrow a truck far easier than a gun. Buying gas isn't something that would raise an eyebrow either.

[Demented Tigers]

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all.

'The majority of people are good.' So by definition, the minority of people are bad. Of that minority lets remove the people that are bad within the law (you know, just generally horrible to people, never help anyone, rude etc.). Then remove the people who are bad outside of the law, but only in small, petty ways. Then white collar criminals. Then unarmed blue collar criminals, followed by small armed, then armed. That's a small number of people compared to the rest of the population. Hardly a major risk in day to day life. Also criminals don't get a criminal record until they are caught. There must be criminals without a record running around buying guns legally, and then selling them on. A bit easier? A lot easier.

Because all criminals: Pay income taxes, pay taxes for whatever place they live in, pay they're bills, pay parking fines, pay extra fees, ect. So yes, being a criminal is a bit cheaper than living as a law-abiding citizen. Also, I'm in economics and majoring in it, so I think I'm aware of economics. Now, those economic models do work; except for one basic economic force: The Black Market. A black market might be a place to sell illegally high priced good; yet it's also a market set up to sell contraband. Now, while a law abiding citizen will not purchase items that are contraband unless absolutely necessary for survival or such, a criminal has no problem purchasing said goods. Also, as I've stated before, a criminal also has no problem producing said guns that criminals will use in a criminal act. Also, noting that breaking any law that stands in they're way is no problem for a criminal, gun control still doesn't apply to anyone who's supposed to be affected by gun control.

We are talking about normal people who break the law, not super-villains! Criminals aren't all or nothing. They pay taxes etc. so they don't get caught by standing out. Minimise risk by only breaking the laws you have to. Your talking about fantasy villains or the bosses of organised crime.

Even super-villians have to either rent or own property. Even super-villians have bills. The concept is patently absurd.

Nah Super-villains are self-sufficient. Obviously there is a set-up cost. Buying an island, building the lair, hiring henchmen, importing dangerous and rare animals, designing and making suits etc. But once they've kidnapped the scientist/professor, and forced him to build a perpetual motion machine, then you're set!

[Jocabia]

So... ban people? Maybe banning a means by which people can all to easily kill people would be more feasible.

I can take a truck, and crash it into a crowded restaurant, and kill a whole lot of people. More than say walking into the restaurant and opening fire.

Easier? More feasible? Got to go with the truck. I can buy, steal, or borrow a truck far easier than a gun. Buying gas isn't something that would raise an eyebrow either.

Uh, probably not. Walls are a lot more difficult to go through than you might think.

Trucks, however, provide a lot of necessary utility when compared to their threat to us. Guns, however, don't. I don't advocate disarming the public as I've said repeatedly. However, it's pretty clear that when you start comparing guns to other actually more useful products, you don't really end up coming out ahead.

As I've shown, statistically, guns are far more likely to be involved in killing a family member than you being murdered in your home. Even out on the street the majority of murders are against other criminals. There simply isn't a good argument for guns providing self-defense against lethal crime. The utility of guns versus the other things you mention just isn't there. You actually want to start trying some good arguments. I promise. The fact that you keep repeating really weak arguments, makes it hard to believe that there are better arguments. Thus you do a disservice to your cause.

[Jocabia]

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all.

'The majority of people are good.' So by definition, the minority of people are bad. Of that minority lets remove the people that are bad within the law (you know, just generally horrible to people, never help anyone, rude etc.). Then remove the people who are bad outside of the law, but only in small, petty ways. Then white collar criminals. Then unarmed blue collar criminals, followed by small armed, then armed. That's a small number of people compared to the rest of the population. Hardly a major risk in day to day life. Also criminals don't get a criminal record until they are caught. There must be criminals without a record running around buying guns legally, and then selling them on. A bit easier? A lot easier.

Because all criminals: Pay income taxes, pay taxes for whatever place they live in, pay they're bills, pay parking fines, pay extra fees, ect. So yes, being a criminal is a bit cheaper than living as a law-abiding citizen. Also, I'm in economics and majoring in it, so I think I'm aware of economics. Now, those economic models do work; except for one basic economic force: The Black Market. A black market might be a place to sell illegally high priced good; yet it's also a market set up to sell contraband. Now, while a law abiding citizen will not purchase items that are contraband unless absolutely necessary for survival or such, a criminal has no problem purchasing said goods. Also, as I've stated before, a criminal also has no problem producing said guns that criminals will use in a criminal act. Also, noting that breaking any law that stands in they're way is no problem for a criminal, gun control still doesn't apply to anyone who's supposed to be affected by gun control.

We are talking about normal people who break the law, not super-villains! Criminals aren't all or nothing. They pay taxes etc. so they don't get caught by standing out. Minimise risk by only breaking the laws you have to. Your talking about fantasy villains or the bosses of organised crime.

Even super-villians have to either rent or own property. Even super-villians have bills. The concept is patently absurd.

Nah Super-villains are self-sufficient. Obviously there is a set-up cost. Buying an island, building the lair, hiring henchmen, importing dangerous and rare animals, designing and making suits etc. But once they've kidnapped the scientist/professor, and forced him to build a perpetual motion machine, then you're set!

Anyone else notice that after I destroyed the whole town of mandatory gun ownership example that JJ abandoned the thread?

Also, sharks with laserbeams are friggin' expensive. I should have told you but I was trying to thwart is super-villian claims, because I am a super-villian. Penis Island is my fortress and I can't have people know just how many advantages I have with all the free stuff I get. It's like being a celebrity. I show up at stores and they just give me stuff because defeating me would be a waste of time. Except in Texas, because their guns are always dinging up my armor.

[Caninope]

the majority of murders are against other criminals

Pretty bold statement, do you have proof?

[Jocabia]

the majority of murders are against other criminals

Pretty bold statement, do you have proof?

It's always a good idea to read the links I already provided... TWICE.

By the by, in the context of what I said, I was clearly talking about those not involving family members, spouses and boyfriends and girlfriends.

[New Amerik]

Just to make sure..... THREAD PLOW



Okay, so, should guns be free, regulated, or outright banned, and why?

[Caninope]

the majority of murders are against other criminals

Pretty bold statement, do you have proof?

It's always a good idea to read the links I already provided... TWICE.

By the by, in the context of what I said, I was clearly talking about those not involving family members, spouses and boyfriends and girlfriends.

Now that you have provided the context, I can agree.

[Ravea]

Just to make sure..... THREAD PLOW



Okay, so, should guns be free, regulated, or outright banned, and why?

Banned. Guns are dishonorable; I say we go back to fighting with blades.

But, I'm biased.

[Caninope]

Just to make sure..... THREAD PLOW



Okay, so, should guns be free, regulated, or outright banned, and why?

Pretty free. Reasons have been provided.

[North Calaveras]

I'd site England; yet that seems a little redundant.

Cite England why?

Because of their rise in crime. Unfortunately, even with this rise, they still have less violent crime than US by about two thirds. Not the best example, but so far every example he's given has turned out to turn against. For example, his mandatory gun law town has more crime than the town that it made those laws in reaction to.

we also have many more citizens than they do.

[Jocabia]

I'd site England; yet that seems a little redundant.

Cite England why?

Because of their rise in crime. Unfortunately, even with this rise, they still have less violent crime than US by about two thirds. Not the best example, but so far every example he's given has turned out to turn against. For example, his mandatory gun law town has more crime than the town that it made those laws in reaction to.

we also have many more citizens than they do.

Which is why the comparison was per capita. Thus the population is not relevant.

[North Calaveras]

if england was as large as the US they would have a higher crime rate.

[Jocabia]

the majority of murders are against other criminals

Pretty bold statement, do you have proof?

It's always a good idea to read the links I already provided... TWICE.

By the by, in the context of what I said, I was clearly talking about those not involving family members, spouses and boyfriends and girlfriends.

Now that you have provided the context, I can agree.

It's meant to address the idea that guns save lives. Those guns are primarily not ever going to get a chance to be used in defense. It's highly unlikely you'll be present when someone is being murdered and even if you are, it's likely to be someone you know and love. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to kill my imaginary wife, that I could make sure she wasn't packing before I did it.

[North Calaveras]

An armed society is a polite society

im not saying you should carry rocket launchers but pistols to assault rifles should be at least allowed