Here are some gun control fallacies...

richard_daily said:

So, you don't actually have a rebuttal for the facts that I gave you, but instead are just going to falsely claim it's a straw man.

Your false notion of "gun violence" is nothing but an amalgamation of non-related deaths, the sum or which are not greater in the US than in other countries. As such, you're false claims that "gun violence" is a problem unique to the US is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

Kindly point out any major public advocacy to "take guns completely out of the equation."

phrodeau said:

Kindly point out any major public advocacy to "take guns completely out of the equation."

Click to expand...

You're really struggling here, aren't you?

Saint Peter said:

Guns do not force me to do evil deeds. Mostly they just pluck off a clay pigeon now and then.

Click to expand...

Now we're talking.

richard_daily said:

You're really struggling here, aren't you?

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine. You're the one with nothing but a straw man.

phrodeau said:

I'm perfectly fine. You're the one with nothing but a straw man.

Click to expand...

So prove my points wrong.

You haven't even been able to get the basics on paper yet.

Let's see your argument, rather than excuses.

Ann_Tagonist said:

Gun phallusies.

Click to expand...

I've never really thought of it as a phallus symbol. Hmmm. Must be a subconscious thing. Is that in any way related to phallusy from so-called "non-sexist" men with regards to feminism?

First of all, no one is saying "guns cause mass murders." Mass murderers cause mass murder.

But it is true that the "mass" murders in the US are committed large by guns and that the type of guns crank up the death count

"Guns cause mass murders"[/B]


Australians have had a half dozen mass murders via arson in the last 10 years. This is the shining example that anti-gun folks hold up to the world as a symbol of "what works".

Click to expand...

First, that's not guns. No one said mass murder does not occur in other forms. Who's saying that?

Second, that statistic is hilarious compared to the number of mass shooting by gun in the US. A half dozen over 10 years, are you serious? We've had more in a month.

Bai Ningyang stabbed and burned 17 people.

Click to expand...

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

Asnain Anwar Warekar stabbed 14 people.

Click to expand...

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov killed 8 with a vehicle and injured 11 m

Click to expand...

.

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

Santosh Maruti Mane killed 9 and injured 37

Click to expand...

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

But the worst, Andreas Günter Lubitz, used his own plane to kill 149 people. There were no survivors. Post-industrial times, there has never been a mass shooting in history that had more fatalities.

Click to expand...

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

There are no situations where a gun caused or causes any of these incidents.

Take guns completely out of the equation, and mass murders still happen, suicides still happen, and gang violence still happens.

Click to expand...

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

Adolf Hitler caused the MASS extermination of 6 million Jews.

Click to expand...

SO WHAT? WE HAVE A PROBLEM OF FREQUENT MASS MURDER WITH HIGH-POWERED GUNS.

Trying to lump these three separate issues together, and claiming that guns are the problem, and calling it "gun violence" is dishonest, and a false narrative.

Click to expand...

Thinking you've made some kind of point by showing mass murder occurs in any number of ways when no one is saying it doesn't is stupid, and a meaningless narrative.

richard_daily said:

While I agree with some of your points, I believe it to be a gross over-simplification in many ways.

I have volunteered with hardened criminals. Not a single one of them was all that different from you or me. The common thread, is that they grew up in different circumstance, with less opportunities than you or I have been afforded.

The solution isn't to vilify people. The solution is to give people access to the tools that they need to have a better life. Namely, access to mental health care. Access to a quality fulfilling job, and the ability to make something for themselves.

If you believe that everyone in this country has equal access to those things already, you're sadly mistaken.

Click to expand...

Well said. In Canada we have more guns per capita than Ammurikah. With the destruction of the middle class and the widening gap between the rich and poor of course there is going to be more violence, not necessarily just gun violence. It's a tactical ploy by our overlords to take away basic human rights and freedoms, under the ruse of "protecting us" from ourselves or from outside threats, which coincidentally change year to year. The US is the biggest munitions manufacturer in the world. Gun violence and war are profitable. As long as the rich keep getting richer everyone else is collateral damage. I see the same pattern happening here with the same results. As to better access to mental healthcare again it all comes down to profit. There are no longer mental institutions (good thing imho), they've been replaced with pharmaceuticals and prisons (not a viable alternative imo) again huge profit making industries. We've all heard of the Industrial prison system and the increasing costs of medication. Guns will only disappear when something else more profitable is found to replace them. In high school my son could buy a handgun for $200, $5 a bullet. So even with gun control laws every coward can hide behind a gun if they're so inclined. But keep in mind with the widening gap between the rich and poor even if guns aren't readily available people will find other ways to cause death and destruction. Guns, arson, cars it's a moot point. Until our philosophy takes an altruistic lean we're all in trouble.

Saint Peter said:

Yeah. I do have a safe full of guns that enable me splatter your brains all over the pavement.

Life is good!

Click to expand...

I like safes. I like them better when I'm not inside one. Especially those gigantic old ones from the 1800s and early 1900s.

We have a massive drug overdose problem compared to other compared to other countries. Is the problem not drugs?

Ah, the Rote Recitation of the NRA Talking Points.



They usually work so well in times of mass murder.

This time? Not so much.

Not nearly as much traction.

Time to pivot to "Now is not teh time!" ?

It's past time to ban AR-15s and any gas-fed auto-reload rifles (automatic AND semi-automatic), along with .223 long ammunition. (that's your cue, Que...you too Moochie McMigraines)

Now trot out your pictures of your guns, natter about revolvers being semi-automatic tooooo, and try and bog the debate down with the differences between automatic and semi-automatic.

Maybe you'll get traction with that.

Funny how even the nuttiest of gun nuts don't seem to be agreeing with Richard Daily's "I don't see teh issue with bump stocks" blather.

richard_daily said:

I keep getting told that the US is the ONLY country with this problem, because we're the only country with gun rights written into our constitution. If that's the case, how come we aren't #1 in regards to these three separate problems?

That's clearly not the case.

Click to expand...

Well, if you only want to respond to the most simplistic argument, I guess that's your prerogative. But your response is as full of holes as the supposed position you're refuting.

richard_daily said:

And yet, all of these issues happen around the world, and happen in greater numbers in many other places.

So the logical conclusion, is that guns are not the problem.

Click to expand...

No, the logical conclusion is that the constitution isn't always the problem.

KimGordon67 said:

No, the logical conclusion is that the constitution isn't always the problem.

Click to expand...

Oh how true. When you consider the times, the US Constitution is possible the singular most inspiring, creative, and logical documentation in the history of all mankind since it's creation. A wonderful collaboration of extraordinary people. People as normal as anyone else, who became extraordinary out of necessity. Damn it must have been so difficult for them to foresee the future as they did indeed attempt to satisfy the needs and desires of a new nation and all the world over embracing their differences rather than defend or fight against each other.

Somehow, we managed to fuck things up.

richard_daily said:

"Guns cause suicides"

Nope.

The US doesn't break top the top 25. So guns do NOT cause more suicides than other countries.


"Guns cause gang violence"

The United States ranks 92nd for murder rates. I guess all of those "gun free countries" still have greater problem with murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


"Guns cause mass murders"

Again, nope.

Australians have had a half dozen mass murders via arson in the last 10 years. This is the shining example that anti-gun folks hold up to the world as a symbol of "what works".

Bai Ningyang stabbed and burned 17 people.

Asnain Anwar Warekar stabbed 14 people.

Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov killed 8 with a vehicle and injured 11 more.

Santosh Maruti Mane killed 9 and injured 37

But the worst, Andreas Günter Lubitz, used his own plane to kill 149 people. There were no survivors. Post-industrial times, there has never been a mass shooting in history that had more fatalities.




There are no situations where a gun caused or causes any of these incidents.

Take guns completely out of the equation, and mass murders still happen, suicides still happen, and gang violence still happens.

Trying to lump these three separate issues together, and claiming that guns are the problem, and calling it "gun violence" is dishonest, and a false narrative.

Click to expand...

lol, You're officially an idiot.

Aglaopheme said:

We have a massive drug overdose problem compared to other compared to other countries. Is the problem not drugs?

Click to expand...

No drugs are a by product of poverty and self medication. Many people with mental health problems turn to street drugs which are cheaper and more accessible. There was an interesting study done which proves that if you give people decent homes and basic necessities drug problems quickly dry up.

Rat Park
For John Calhoun's rat city, see behavioral sink.
Rat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the late 1970s (and published in 1981) by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander and his colleagues at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.

Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to them is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself.[1]

To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, a large housing colony, 200 times the floor area of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16–20 rats of both sexes in residence, food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating.[2] The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis.

Infamy

As long as infamy is regarded as a form of significance, mass murders and assassinations will remain a problem.

Mass murders might be reduced if semiautomatic rifles were controlled better. The over-all murder rate might be unaffected, but carnage would be reduced. It wouldn't be eliminated.

I wish the argument were on a more technical level. For instance, I love the AR15. But I'd gladly store a high powered, semiautomatic rifle at a shooting facility or gun range warehouse if it would prevent some mass shootings. Transport to another site might be unwieldy if the storers had to send it there; but I'd put up with it. I usually shoot at one range, rarely go elsewhere. Those who like to blow off thousands of rounds in a national forest might be unhappy.

Any hunter who aims can use a bolt action (or similar) rifle (similar muzzle velocities to the assault rifles, etc.), but that weapon would not be as effective if used in an intended mass murder (or if a grizzly were charging). And anyone with a semiautomatic pistol would have a better chance of bringing an incident to a close.

Semiautomatic pistols are involved in the vast majority of gun murders. The Virginia Tech murderer used two pistols and killed 32(?). So restricting assault weapons might just make it harder and reduce the scope for some incidents. But most pistols don't fire through two people or walls, nor hold such large magazines. Usually.

What if we see an increase in arson at schools? What if we see more attempts to bomb, like the Bath, Michigan bombings that killed 38?

Your animosities are misplaced. A person who wants to restrict gun ownership is not evil, just sincere, perhaps desperate. A person who wants to shoot a gun is not evil; a person who wants to shoot a person is.

Part of your discussion was quite humorous: calling an argument a straw man without contradicting definitive evidence is a serious flaw. It's like saying you have "alternative facts" which go without saying. It was like two straw men were fighting.

Thanks for the discussion. It made me think.

richard_daily said:

Hypoxia said:

As with most non-first-world countries, all firearms laws are widely ignored. To enter a shopping mall in Honduras, we passed the rent-a-cop 'checking' (confiscating) handguns of shoppers. Cheaters could justifiably be shot. Do we want private handgun 'control' here?

Click to expand...

And yet, all of these issues happen around the world, and happen in greater numbers in many other places.

So the logical conclusion, is that guns are not the problem.

Click to expand...

Honduras usually ranks as the murder capitol of the world. Private guards there certainly seemed to think guns were the problem; we weren't shaken down for knives or machetes.

Here's the dynamic in a society where huge numbers of males in public carry: Assume every man could kill you instantly. If they seem to threaten, shoot them before they can shoot you. That's the logic of survival: Kill or be killed. Is that what we want here?

warrior queen said:

I'm going to say it again - keep your guns.

Click to expand...

wanker queen crying-out for ego-starving attention AGAIN, still fantasizing her Australian "say" has any relevance at all.

Why don't you get ahold of George Soros and see if he'll sell you an American vote, wannabe?

BobBalouski said:

wanker queen crying-out for ego-starving attention AGAIN, still fantasizing her Australian "say" has any relevance at all.

Why don't you get ahold of George Soros and see if he'll sell you an American vote, wannabe?

Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think you may have some wierd fantasy/lust thing going on for me.
Every time I say anything, there you are..... righteous and panting...... desperately seeking my response and attention.

Perhaps you need to wean yourself off your obsession with me? Or maybe just make a clean break - like ripping off a bandaid quickly to lessen the pain

Monarcy/statism/communist/socialism/progressivism/collectivism

vs.

Individual liberty

This is humankind's perpetual political (governance) battle, one that this ongoing unconstitutional gun debate is simply a current chapter of.

America's founders/framers declared and constituted their new nation as world history's first in which God-endowed, naturally inalienable individual rights are THE LAW OF THE LAND, and that any government existing UNDER that Constitution must first obey, serve, protect and GUARANTEE that LAW, too,...

...or it has no legitimate right to exist at all.

Thus, America's founders/framers specifically created the Constitution's Amendment II, once more, even more emphatically COMMANDING government that it will not infringe - PERIOD - on a law-abiding and mentally sound American's God-endowed, naturally unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms - for whatever purpose the INDIVIDUAL deems.

The age-old monarchy/statism/communist/socialism/progressivism/collectivism political tyrant machine is simply still striving to overthrow the Constitution for the United States of America by intentionally subverting its RULE OF LAW (which EQUALLY applies over everyone/everything INDIVIDUALLY) with its NATION OF MEN (which only applies subjectively to anyone/anything their democratic/majority/mob rule collective deems deserving).

On this uniquely American political issue...

...why do you think the American s/s/p/c brigade, the GB's s/s/p/c brigade and Communist China are ALL on the same political page when it comes to "gun-control" in America?

During the constitutional convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 - in which the Constitution as we STILL know it today was discussed, debated, passed and signed onto the States for ratification - it was argued that the Constitution needed to emphatically state more what the new federal government it constituted was FORBIDDEN to involve itself in AT ALL. But the winning argument was one that VERY FEW even understand to this day: it is more pertinent to specifically state what the intentionally LIMITED new federal government could do, rather than include the virtually endless list of individual liberties and State rights-first a nation of free people NATURALLY, INALIENABLY possess BEFORE ANY GOVERNMENT EXISTS AT ALL.

Many delegates, after losing their argument to unarguably protect some of those unalienable individual rights by emphatically listing them in the original Constitution as specific items the new government shall not involve itself in, insisted they would not sign the Constitution only because of those omissions...

Alas, one of the main impetuses of the constitutional convention convening in the first place was the overall dread the thirteen fully independent States of America collectively perceived of the still looming military threat from Great Britain just 4 years after officially winning their full political independence from its monarchical King and statist Parliament: many felt the thirteen totally independent State governments were less ready to confront that threat than maybe if the States united to form as one formidable power. The point being: rush time to form that one, united, NATIONAL (yes, they called it "national" before "federal" came into popular use) power was a critical consideration...

...which virtually all the Philadelphia delegates with. So, the winners of the "negative rights" constitutional convention argument offered a compromise to the delegates who refused to sign: let's pass and sign this Constitution so it can get on its way to the States for ratification, champion our asses of for its ratification so it can become the LAW OF THE LAND asap, and then, when its first Congress convenes, we promise its very first order of business will be passing Articles for a bill of rights which can be amended to the Constitution.

Thus, the first 10 Amendments to America's Constitution, world-renowned as its Bill of Rights, are simply an emphatic extension of its COMMANDS of what US federal government is forbidden to do...

Yet still, individual liberty's age-old enemy - statism/communism/socialism/progressivism/collectivism - seeks to overturn that LAW OF THE LAND command so that those naturally God-endowed, inalienably American individual rights are SURRENDERED once more to live fully submissive to whatever NATION OF MEN government they democratically/majority/mob rule/collectively manage to establish.

It is written that a woman standing outside the Pennsylvania State House in which America's constitutional convention convened, asked Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving after signing the Constitution, what kind of new government the delegates had finally agree upon - Franklin allegedly answered:

A Republic, if you can keep it.

America's revolutionary/foundational/constituted political principle of unalienable individual liberty ABOVE ANY GOVERNMENT is unique to our world's history: NEVER has any body of people so famous in that history intentionally established that form of government as their Law of their Land. And that is primarily why, I suspect, that every person not intimate with that unique world political knowledge, those EVERYWHERE ELSE whose GOVERNMENT IS SUPREME OVER ALL individual rights (statist by definition), cannot even fathom how/why America is any different than their statist collective...

...and naturally, then, they insist individual liberty-constituted America become more like their lemming understanding, their lemming faith in statist collectivism.

I have long maintained that the glorious American Republic has long been lost now, that statism/communism/socialism/progressivism's democrat/majority/mob rule/collective NATION OF MEN has succeeded FULLY in subverting THE LAW OF THE LAND's declared and constituted supremacy of God-endowed, inalienable INDIVIDUAL rights ABOVE ALL...

...making this current, ongoing, anti-Constitution battle now simply, in my mind, about whether there are even enough natural law-loving, God-revering patriots left to keep the glorious spirit of American revolutionary political principles alive for the future's benefit.

That there is even any whisper of (now Communist China-championed) statism/communist/socialist/progressive/collectivist address OVER Amendment II should fully open the eyes of even the most asleep to the peril the Republic has already fallen to.

But, like they say about leading Jews to boxcars...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518361/

I know it won't make any difference for the OP, he is brain dead. But for those people out there that may be depressed...don't keep a gun in your house. Statistics, can be manipulated to show what one wants...but in this case, the numbers are too glaring.

Here are some more numbers.

Not a lot of rifle murders in there compared to handguns.

Not sure what side of the fence I'm on. I've never owned or fired a gun. I don't want my rights regulated. I do want guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Typo Fu Master said:

Here are some more numbers.

Not a lot of rifle murders in there compared to handguns.

Not sure what side of the fence I'm on. I've never owned or fired a gun. I don't want my rights regulated. I do want guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Click to expand...

Rifles aren't good for most civilian killing and suicides. Handguns is where it's at. Easy to carry, hide and shoot. Not accurate past a few yards unless you're Annie Oakley but good enough to get the job done. Great for suicide. No fumbling around trying to fire with your toe or something.

Carnal_Flower said:

First of all, no one is saying "guns cause mass murders." Mass murderers cause mass murder.

Click to expand...

Really?

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.

.

So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.



So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.



So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.



So what? WE have a problem of frequent mass murder with high-powered guns.



SO WHAT? WE HAVE A PROBLEM OF FREQUENT MASS MURDER WITH HIGH-POWERED GUNS.

Click to expand...

Cool story, bro.