Be a Supporter!

Canadian Gun Control

  • 4,142 Views
  • 119 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-22 02:30:54 Reply

At 4/21/11 07:40 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Use them like that in ANY University work, and you are fucking screwed !!!

so i should probably go tell my teachers all the statistics they ask me to familiarize myself with are bunk.

that just saved me a whole bunch of schooling.

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-22 03:58:43 Reply

We have the perfect example of "more guns= less crime" in America. America is 100% proof that more guns= less crime, lets abolish all laws and give everyone with a functioning hand a gun.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-22 05:23:54 Reply

At 4/21/11 09:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I never said guns were specifically made to harm. Guns were made to shoot a projectile into a target and to cause harm to that target. That is their purpose, plain and simple. The reason they can be used as deterrence is because their purpose is to cause harm.

OK, but what other deterrence doesn't fall into the same category? If I use a knife or a sword made to defend me...the purpose remains. The blade was made to cut through (usually) meat, and sometimes bone. If it is a sword or a long dagger I bought to protect me, the purpose of making it was to inflict bodily injury, and the intent of me harnassing it is to inflict bodily injury.

There is simply no deterrent that isn't covered by this.


There is no reason to be blind or naive here. Harm is the intended purpose of guns plain and simple. That does not necessarily mean guns are bad, as there are numerous uses where the harm or threat of harm does good.

Well, if we wish to be real...

The intended purpose of guns varies from gun to gun. The starting gun has no potential for harm. Paintball guns are for sport and people deliberately get shot for fun. Target guns are intended to shoot targets. While hunting rifles are intended to kill animals, that is their purpose.

What else can we remove from society because it has no practical purpose beyond harm? Swords? "Excessive" knives? Nascar? Weapons of any kind?

Even most people who buy a gun don't WANT to use it. They have it for protection. And the vast majority of guns are NOT used to cause any harm to anything (sorry, we're not including paper targets, as that's ridiculous). So the numbers alone hurt your case, and the various ways in which guns are used that have zero potential of harm hurts your case.

At 4/21/11 07:40 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE !!! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK !!! I'm not talking about MY FEELINGS !!! I'm talking about how FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, SOCIAL FACTORS AND YOUR FUCKING BRAIN COMES IN THE PLAY WHEN IT'S TIME TO USE A WEAPON !!! Jesus... man, I'm really feeling that I'm wasting my time with this! Statistics are shit unless you know how to read them right. Statistics =/= arguments. Use them like that in ANY University work, and you are fucking screwed !!!

Idiots do tend to get aggravated talking to me...as I call them idiots and dismiss their idiocy without much comment. If you'd like to argue a point other than "guns are bad, m'kay?" I'll give you a shot. But as long as we are debating your personal feelings and dismissing statistics (and that is indeed what you are doing), I will continue to write you off as an imbecile.

You started that useless name calling shit... fucking hypocretical jerk...

Did I? Well, no. It turns out I didn't. After putting forward lots of facts and arguments, you came in spouting half-retarded theories about nothing. In fact, the quote I responded to started with:

That's a flawed logic no matter how true your facts are...

In other words, no matter whether the person was right or wrong...you rejected their logic. I did address ALL of your arguments in some detail. I went into C&C laws. I talked about the rates of crime after adopted. I went into the crime rates in England after the ban started. While I will admit that I didn't write volumes...I DID address your points. The closest I can be said to insulting you was:

:: Really, explain me how it works, cause I really fail to understand.

Obviously.

What was the response?

You know what... if you are going to play the fucking smart-ass with me, I'm not reading your post. You are obviously biased, and I was merely just sharing my opinion on a matter I really don't know that much, and asking for questions.
You are not stating facts. You take stupid statistics,

Did I curse at you or call you a smart-ass? Well, no. Did you instead refuse to read ANY of my response and lie through your teeth claiming I provided no facts? Well, yes. Was my somewhat mocking response taking that into account? Well, yes. Duh.

So, you didn't read my post...but I stated no facts.
Pardon me if I don't take that criticism with anything but mockery. Idiot.

HAHAHAHAHA intellectual superior !!! HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! I've went back in this thread and read your posts and realised that you didn't ever use fucking statistics... My original post was not even intended to you... and now you are going apeshit, thinking that you are smart. If you really were, you would stop claiming it. Intelligent people, don't try to put other down with countless Ad Hominem "fake" arguments, they talk about the real matter

Well, I am certainly smarter than you. Not that that means I'm brilliant or anything. But I am clearly more intelligent than you. While I have mocked you as a moron...you're a moron. I've reread your debates too. You specifically refuse to counter any assertion I have made. Indeed, you simply say "statistics are stupid". I do call you names, but I have backed up every claim I have made. You simply say you are right, and if the facts disagree, the facts are stupid.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, address the argument. Because if you're claiming I never used factual arguments in this thread...you're a fucking retard. Compare your treatment with that of Iron Hampster, who is just as wrong as you, but isn't a complete idiot and a jackass to boot.

But, in all fairness, perhaps I worded it poorly and you misunderstood?

I took the opportunity to claim I had perhaps inarticulately worded my argument and said the fault may lie with me inadequately arguing my case. Because IH may be wrong, but is generally respectful. The only time I can see I mocked him was when he said that an 80 year old woman should just outrun a youthful mugger.

Compared to you who I routinely mock as a mental midget. The fault is with you. You're a terrible debater, and a prideful fool...not to mention a raging asshole. Do your mea culpa and maybe I'll be nice to you again.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-22 05:33:52 Reply

At 4/22/11 03:58 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: We have the perfect example of "more guns= less crime" in America. America is 100% proof that more guns= less crime, lets abolish all laws and give everyone with a functioning hand a gun.

Or we can look at England.

Banning guns removes the chance of gun crime, right?

Well, no, not at all:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/21 /arrest-northern-ireland-murder

Owning guns is illegal! Why didn't that stop him! They certainly aren't allowed to have bombs!

Crime rates have been rising in England for quite some time, while they fall here. While I do not agree with all the contentions in this article, the general trends are undeniable:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html

While we got laxer on our guns, crime went down, while the opposite happened in England. Hmmm.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

Leeloo-Minai
Leeloo-Minai
  • Member since: Jun. 5, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-22 08:53:14 Reply

At 4/21/11 11:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/21/11 11:04 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: For every criminal shot and killed, there's one less repeat offender.

Does that stat count?
That was a situation, not a stat.

I'm pretty sure that's a stat that arises from a situation.

How do you breath without choking?

How many crimes are stopped becuase of guns? How many crimes are escalated because of the victim carrying a gun?

Crime escalation due to victim.

You sound like a rape-defense lawyer's wet dream.

highschooldude
highschooldude
  • Member since: Jan. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-22 10:29:08 Reply

okay since i last spoke i'm counting 4 peole for gun control, angaist evey body else! well i gess i di'nt have to wast my time one dude made fun of my spelling, made some good piont, got plowed on thoses piont and know gun controlis looking preaty stoopid after the election the way things are going i don't think it will be as much of a problem anyways ,i'm gona buy my first gun once the long gun Registry gets scaped (mark my words it will be soon)

HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 17:47:54 Reply

At 4/22/11 05:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Idiots do tend to get aggravated talking to me...as I call them idiots and dismiss their idiocy without much comment. If you'd like to argue a point other than "guns are bad, m'kay?" I'll give you a shot. But as long as we are debating your personal feelings and dismissing statistics (and that is indeed what you are doing), I will continue to write you off as an imbecile.

What a pathetic excuse. "Dismiss their idiocy without much comment." That's the excuse of a lazy stupid asshole. Often, morons tend to believe that their opinions are obvious facts and do not explain why someone else should be wrong, because people like that, most of the time, just don't know how to rebut an argument.

You are stupid. A true moron, and not one of those who hits their head against the wall. One of those morons who never went to school, but who knows better than anyone else.

Screw you bitch, not once have you prooved me wrong. NOT ONCE!

Did I? Well, no. It turns out I didn't. After putting forward lots of facts and arguments, you came in spouting half-retarded theories about nothing. In fact, the quote I responded to started with:

Get back on topic, moron.

In other words, no matter whether the person was right or wrong...you rejected their logic. I did address ALL of your arguments in some detail. I went into C&C laws. I talked about the rates of crime after adopted. I went into the crime rates in England after the ban started. While I will admit that I didn't write volumes...I DID address your points.

I didn't reject the facts, I rejected the analysis. But such fucking faggots like you cannot understand that. If you are going to use statistics, you better learn how to make a good analysis, and get the correct interpretations out of these statistics.

Do you just understand what I mean? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?

It's quite fucking easy to see a correlation between two elements, even when there is none. As I said before. There was a TV announcer who made a lousy mistake, cause he couldn't analyse the statistics PROPERLY. He was talking about Medications and Health. He said "Looking at how better the people's health got over the last 20 years, and seing how we got more medications over these last 20 years, there must be some kind of correlation between these two. And an expert told him he was wrong, and that he forgot to aknowledge other factors. Like better nutrition, better work conditions, etc.

That's what I was talking about. So when I said "No matter how true your fact are, this is still a flawed logic." I was talking about "making a bad lecture of those statistics".

Well, I am certainly smarter than you. Not that that means I'm brilliant or anything. But I am clearly more intelligent than you. While I have mocked you as a moron...you're a moron. I've reread your debates too. You specifically refuse to counter any assertion I have made. Indeed, you simply say "statistics are stupid". I do call you names, but I have backed up every claim I have made. You simply say you are right, and if the facts disagree, the facts are stupid.

No you are not smarter. Smart people don't go around insulting others, and claiming their are smart. Most of our discussion as been a stupid flamming war. You can't just claim someone is stupid only after reading a few posts in a thread on the internet. As I fucking told you before, I get very good grades for my political science work I do. If PHDs think I know what I'm talking about, I doubt some freaking teenager is going to make me doubt my intelligence. Sorry, but you will actually have to come up with arguments if you want to proove me wrong.

Now get back on topic.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, address the argument. Because if you're claiming I never used factual arguments in this thread...you're a fucking retard. Compare your treatment with that of Iron Hampster, who is just as wrong as you, but isn't a complete idiot and a jackass to boot.

You are never adressing the argument. What irony...

Compared to you who I routinely mock as a mental midget. The fault is with you. You're a terrible debater, and a prideful fool...not to mention a raging asshole. Do your mea culpa and maybe I'll be nice to you again.

There is NEVER a good reason to insult someone in a debate. It just prooves how intellectually limited you are. If you ever feel like insulting someone when having a debate, it's because you lack the brain cells to get in a real exchange of arguments. And don't claim that I'm insulting you two, I'm just fighting back.

Now seriously, get back on topic. If you just answer this post with other useless personnal attacks, then you will just proove how stupid and pretentious you are.

SneakyGameBoy
SneakyGameBoy
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Gamer
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 17:51:09 Reply

Lol


XBL Gamertag: Cpt D3FAULT | PSN ID: SNEAKYGAMEBOY | GAMING SINCE 2002 ;D

BBS Signature
LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 18:00:08 Reply

At 4/23/11 05:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: :

There is NEVER a good reason to insult someone in a debate.

Says you, dumb ass.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 18:41:04 Reply

At 4/23/11 06:00 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: At 4/23/11 05:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: :
There is NEVER a good reason to insult someone in a debate.
Says you, dumb ass.

Hey sir, you just came here, you read half my post and you open your fucking mouth for no reason? If someone here is a dumbass, it's you :)

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 18:52:44 Reply

well, this has gone downhill fast.

anywho, when we do see these studies where guns are in favor for less crime, what crimes are we talking about? less murder or less theft. both are crimes however one is much more severe and heinous than the other. Further more, most of us would agree that one crime to be the victim of is not as bad as being the victim of the other.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 20:01:31 Reply

At 4/23/11 06:52 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well, this has gone downhill fast.

anywho, when we do see these studies where guns are in favor for less crime, what crimes are we talking about? less murder or less theft. both are crimes however one is much more severe and heinous than the other. Further more, most of us would agree that one crime to be the victim of is not as bad as being the victim of the other.

That's the key...

I've read a few posts by different users who claimed that more gun control was not an effective way to stop crime. It's not obvious that having less gun control would not make the crime rate increase thought. While it may seem like it should be the case, reality could be different.

So yes, someone did say that since Canada started to get more gun control, the crime rate didn't go down. What it could mean, is that those who commit crime still find a way to get their guns, right?

So what could be the solutions to get some kind of balance? I see people in here would be in favor of less gun control, so people can actually get weapons two, and be able to use it in self-defense if they were ever attacked by a criminal.

I still don't like the idea of getting more guns for everybody. Like I said before, a weapon's sole purpose is to injure or kill people. I don't really like the idea of using violence to solve our already existing problems with violence. Wouldn't it be a better idea to get some more ressources spent on trying to stop the weapons from being smuggled in the country? I know that it could still be pretty hard though, especially considering that we have the United States of American as neighboors.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 20:34:01 Reply

At 4/22/11 05:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote: OK, but what other deterrence doesn't fall into the same category? If I use a knife or a sword made to defend me...the purpose remains. The blade was made to cut through (usually) meat, and sometimes bone. If it is a sword or a long dagger I bought to protect me, the purpose of making it was to inflict bodily injury, and the intent of me harnassing it is to inflict bodily injury.

Swords fall into the same catergory as guns, however I make a distinction for knives. Knives are made to destroy by cutting, however, most knives are meant to cut constructively. Butcher knives are meant to construct meals through cutting, same with other culinary cutlery. Go ahead and say i am splitting hairs, I very well may be, but I see this distinction as very important.

There is simply no deterrent that isn't covered by this.

There is a great deal of deterrents that are covered. Hammers, kitchen knives, drills, baseball bats. Essentially anything that has a primary purpose that is constructive, or at least no destructive.

The intended purpose of guns varies from gun to gun. The starting gun has no potential for harm. Paintball guns are for sport and people deliberately get shot for fun. Target guns are intended to shoot targets. While hunting rifles are intended to kill animals, that is their purpose.

Paintball guns definitely are not in the catergory I was thinking of. As for the rest, except when used with blanks, or those practice rounds that disintegrate upon contact, both of which are minor uses, they are still involved in destruction, and not in any constructive manner like kitchen knives.

What else can we remove from society because it has no practical purpose beyond harm? Swords? "Excessive" knives? Nascar? Weapons of any kind?

Don't take what I say too far. I am just setting a philosphical ground for which the decision of whether to restrict of outlaw can be properly made.

Even most people who buy a gun don't WANT to use it. They have it for protection. And the vast majority of guns are NOT used to cause any harm to anything (sorry, we're not including paper targets, as that's ridiculous). So the numbers alone hurt your case, and the various ways in which guns are used that have zero potential of harm hurts your case.

How things are used is one thing. Guns are meant to fire bullets. Bullets that are meant to destroy what they strike. Just because many people don't actually use it as intended doesn't change the purpose of the object.

At 4/22/11 08:53 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I'm pretty sure that's a stat that arises from a situation.

That was just a hypothetical. No numers. No ratios. Nothing to actually give me an idea of how viable your cvlaim that civvies owning guns actually lowers crimes.

How do you breath without choking?

Quite well. Thank you for asking.


Crime escalation due to victim.

If there is a robbery where the robber has a gun. That robber sees the victim grab a gun. The robbery is likely to escalate beyond a simple robbery because the victim upped the ante with a gun of their own.

You sound like a rape-defense lawyer's wet dream.

I was talking scenario and you jump to guilt. And yes, getting drunk in a frat house IS a way for a girl to get herself raped. Did her conduct greatly increased the chance of her getting raped? Yes. Does this make the rapist any less guilty? No.

I don't want any more conclusions or thinking out of you. Just give me some stats to support your claim.

LazyDrunk
LazyDrunk
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-23 21:13:02 Reply

At 4/23/11 06:41 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
At 4/23/11 06:00 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: At 4/23/11 05:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: :
There is NEVER a good reason to insult someone in a debate.
Says you, dumb ass.
Hey sir, you just came here

I've been here, n00b

[see wut i did thar?]

you read half my post and you open your fucking mouth for no reason? If someone here is a dumbass, it's you :)

Your diatribe extolling the virtues of level-headedness was lacking.

Dumb ass.


We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.

BBS Signature
WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-24 04:18:54 Reply

At 4/23/11 05:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: What a pathetic excuse. "Dismiss their idiocy without much comment." That's the excuse of a lazy stupid asshole. Often, morons tend to believe that their opinions are obvious facts and do not explain why someone else should be wrong, because people like that, most of the time, just don't know how to rebut an argument.

I'm going to delete the rest, because it's irrelevant.

I don't write volumes in response to people who dismiss statistics as boring. Most idiots, like yourself, refuse to provide ANY facts. They sit back on arguments like "ONE DEAD KID IS TOO MANY!" or "I HATES TEH GUNZORS!" Again, kinda like you.

I don't waste the time, not because of a weakness in my argument, but because there are intelligent and honest commentators who are wrong, and they are more worthy of my time than a stupid child like you. Also, I see little reason to write volumes to someone who admits they have no desire to read an ACTUAL argument. You did that. Why would I waste time looking up statistics and studies and facts, when you have already said "Screw that shit! Reading things that prove me wrong is beneath me!"

Sorry, you bore me. Go back to being stupid in silence and do us all a favor. I'm going to go back to other people who are wrong, but not retarded.

At 4/23/11 06:52 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well, this has gone downhill fast.

anywho, when we do see these studies where guns are in favor for less crime, what crimes are we talking about? less murder or less theft. both are crimes however one is much more severe and heinous than the other. Further more, most of us would agree that one crime to be the victim of is not as bad as being the victim of the other.

Well, I did post one above.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html

However, it's fair to want more. Here's one that demolishes the idea that gun laws prevent crime. From the FBI no less:
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/det ail.html?serial=62

Here's another that dismisses the idea that availability of guns affects crime:
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564 /
I know it says it's an abstract, but it allows you to download the paper.

Here's some more without commentary:
http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/why_vermon t_ccdw.htm
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/R TCResearch.html
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/
Read.aspx?ID=18

OK, I understand the last one is NRA, but it's heavily sourced, and I went for the more sourced articles.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-24 04:37:12 Reply

At 4/23/11 08:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Swords fall into the same catergory as guns, however I make a distinction for knives. Knives are made to destroy by cutting, however, most knives are meant to cut constructively. Butcher knives are meant to construct meals through cutting, same with other culinary cutlery. Go ahead and say i am splitting hairs, I very well may be, but I see this distinction as very important.

It is splitting hairs, in my book. Knives are made to cut through meat and bone. Many on animals that have just been killed. If this exact same purpose is used on humans...then it's used on humans. There are, however, no shortage of knives that are made for military or other purposes.

Swords fall into the same category as knives, as they are simply bigger versions of the same thing. To counter your contention, the number one purpose swords are made for is decoration. While you can sharpen them and use them to destroy...that is not why most of them are made. Yet, you have a problem with swords, made to be useless, and not with knives, often made to kill. I find that curious.

There is a great deal of deterrents that are covered. Hammers, kitchen knives, drills, baseball bats. Essentially anything that has a primary purpose that is constructive, or at least no destructive.

Im sorry but...This is a useless distinction. No one rushes out after a bombing and says "BUT GUYS! Dynamite can be used constructively too!" It's irrelevant. The knife one is flat out incorrect, you just like the purpose. To an animal lover...butcher knives are no different than guns. Before you dismiss that as nonsense...you kinda have to think that their position is just a more extreme version of your own.

Paintball guns definitely are not in the catergory I was thinking of. As for the rest, except when used with blanks, or those practice rounds that disintegrate upon contact, both of which are minor uses, they are still involved in destruction, and not in any constructive manner like kitchen knives.

Saving a life is constructive. Police regularly use guns to force violent attackers to stand down...as do other civilians. There is nothing more constructive in the world than taking a woman who was about to be raped and saving her from that, or allowing a mother to get home to her children who would otherwise be dead in a gutter.

Don't take what I say too far. I am just setting a philosphical ground for which the decision of whether to restrict of outlaw can be properly made.

That's not how it works. Ignoring the terrible flaws in your argument so far...the most logical question is "how does this work out?" If we ban something because it causes harm, then we ban it for causing harm. Soda has no value whatsoever. It's garbage. It rots teeth, contributes to obescity and health problems. BAN IT! While you may not like that I am taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion is irrelevant. It is the INEVITABLE conclusion. Because you have retards like HeavenDuff influencing policy, where does the line get drawn. Is any harm too much, as he has idiotically claimed, "One dead child is too many?!?" Or do we subjectively say that something that causes more than a certain amount of harm is too much? Perhaps if it causes more harm than good, as knives can be argued to do, we should ban it? These aren't idle questions. And, as we see in England, where such bans on knives and baseball bats have been considered, they are not only within the realm of possibility, they are a next step that any society who adopts your conclusions will go to. Even here in America, we ban things that lead to one injury, one death. We make products have asinine labels reminding people not to swallow fishing tackles with hooks, or don't drink bleach.

If you think that I shouldn't take the state of the world, and America, into account when I consider your arguments, you're silly. Even if I dismissed everything I know about guns and self defense...I have to look at where this goes. And it's NOT pretty.

How things are used is one thing. Guns are meant to fire bullets. Bullets that are meant to destroy what they strike. Just because many people don't actually use it as intended doesn't change the purpose of the object.

Knives are meant to cut through things. What the person uses them to cut through then, doesn't matter. If the intent is to destroy meat and bone, then they MUST go.

Sorry man, your logic kinda sucks.

If there is a robbery where the robber has a gun. That robber sees the victim grab a gun. The robbery is likely to escalate beyond a simple robbery because the victim upped the ante with a gun of their own.

That's ridiculous. And it defies not only logic, but what criminals themselves tell us about armed victims. No criminal ever rapes a woman because she pulled a gun. "Hey man, I just wanted her purse. But she pulled a gun and I just got so mad I had to shove it up her ass!" The ONLY way that this works is that the robbery becomes a gun battle. And if the robber has no real intention to do more than robbery...he's going to get away if he can. So you have an extremely narrow slice of all crime that could possibly escalate. Something on the nature of one or two crimes a year. Such an unlikely scenerio is not worth seriously considering in determining overall gun policy.

I was talking scenario and you jump to guilt. And yes, getting drunk in a frat house IS a way for a girl to get herself raped. Did her conduct greatly increased the chance of her getting raped? Yes. Does this make the rapist any less guilty? No.

This doesn't work though. The comparison is invalid. The girl puts herself in a bad situation by falling asleep in a drunken frat boy party. The victim of senseless crime is a victim from the word go. Whereas, at least, we can look at the drunk rape victim and use it as a lesson to other girls, we can't do that with home invasion. The guy did not "contribute" by having a home, or a nice TV.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

B151
B151
  • Member since: Dec. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-24 09:06:59 Reply

At 4/24/11 04:37 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The girl puts herself in a bad situation by falling asleep in a drunken frat boy party. The victim of senseless crime is a victim from the word go. Whereas, at least, we can look at the drunk rape victim and use it as a lesson to other girls,

Because she was definately acting slutty and had it coming right?

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-24 10:21:35 Reply

At 4/24/11 09:06 AM, B151 wrote: Because she was definately acting slutty and had it coming right?

No, because she put herself in a bad situation.

Go away, fool.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-24 10:35:33 Reply

Wolven Bear, you are plain pathetic... I won't bother quoting your post, because your lack of intelligence is just stunning....

You say you don't have time to waste with idiots like me, yet that's what you've been doing throughout the whole thread. If my comments are "too stupid" for you, then don't be an hypocritical ass, just ignore them. If you really were superior and far more intelligent then I am, you wouldn't just jump in a flame war for no reason. That's fucking stupid and immature. Intelligent people don't need to say they.

Plus, if you still haven't got what I meant with statistics, then screw you moron... You won't ever understand. I'll make it simple, so everybody can understand: Statistics without the proper analysis are not worth anything. They may be accurate statistics, if you fail to get the point of these statistics and give a shit analysis, then screw your numbers.

Yes I did say "One life is too many." But it's not just one life. I don't remember you're fucking statistics, but one guy said accidental deaths is something like 30000 deaths a year in the US only. He tried to eliminate half that number because of "suicide" but it's pointless... because of the argument I provided. Go back and read it.

30 000 deaths is a lot of dead people, and it as a big social cost. These people have family, friends... a life... beyond the fucking number "1" that you've placed over them. I don't think we will ever solve violence by more violence. To stop violence, we shouldn't provide more guns to people. Guns are made to kill. More killing is uselss. We should work against smugglers, crime lords, criminals and get their weapons away from them instead...

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-24 11:20:43 Reply

At 4/24/11 04:37 AM, WolvenBear wrote: It is splitting hairs, in my book. Knives are made to cut through meat and bone. Many on animals that have just been killed. If this exact same purpose is used on humans...then it's used on humans. There are, however, no shortage of knives that are made for military or other purposes.

Knives construct by cutting. They can be used the precision needed to destroy in a manner that is actually constructive. Guns just cannot.

Swords fall into the same category as knives, as they are simply bigger versions of the same thing. To counter your contention, the number one purpose swords are made for is decoration. While you can sharpen them and use them to destroy...that is not why most of them are made. Yet, you have a problem with swords, made to be useless, and not with knives, often made to kill. I find that curious.

Actually swords are meant to fight with. That's what a sword is. That is why they were invented. Just because decorative swords are made does not change their desctructive intent.

Im sorry but...This is a useless distinction. No one rushes out after a bombing and says "BUT GUYS! Dynamite can be used constructively too!" It's irrelevant. The knife one is flat out incorrect, you just like the purpose. To an animal lover...butcher knives are no different than guns. Before you dismiss that as nonsense...you kinda have to think that their position is just a more extreme version of your own.

I wouldn't consider dynamite to be constructive. Dynamite was made for destructive purposes, adn that what it does.

The animal lover thing is a lame argument. I am sure you can find anybody to beliueve anything, so taking a fringe group doesn't change anything. Kitchen knives are meant to construct by deduction.

Saving a life is constructive. Police regularly use guns to force violent attackers to stand down...as do other civilians. There is nothing more constructive in the world than taking a woman who was about to be raped and saving her from that, or allowing a mother to get home to her children who would otherwise be dead in a gutter.

How does a bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound not harmful? Firing a bullet is the goal of guns. Bullets cause harm to their targets. That is the intent aand purpose of guns.

If we ban something because it causes harm, then we ban it for causing harm.

You didn't listen to what I said so I didn't read this big paragraph.

If you think that I shouldn't take the state of the world, and America, into account when I consider your arguments, you're silly. Even if I dismissed everything I know about guns and self defense...I have to look at where this goes. And it's NOT pretty.

Self defence, deterrence, or anything else does not change the fact that guns are made to cause harm. Use does not change the intent of an invention.

Knives are meant to cut through things. What the person uses them to cut through then, doesn't matter. If the intent is to destroy meat and bone, then they MUST go.

What are you even talking about "must go" here? Since when did anything "going" become a part of my argument?

Sorry man, your logic kinda sucks.

Just your comprehension skills.

That's ridiculous. And it defies not only logic, but what criminals themselves tell us about armed victims. No criminal ever rapes a woman because she pulled a gun.

Wow... Just wow. You did realize the rape thing was an example and had nothing to do with guns, right? I was saying that a small crime can be escalated to something much worse if the victim, instead of doing nothing, attempts to pull a gun. A criminal who is already tense and armed, may react with violence whereas violence was not part of the initial plan.

This doesn't work though. The comparison is invalid. The girl puts herself in a bad situation by falling asleep in a drunken frat boy party. The victim of senseless crime is a victim from the word go. Whereas, at least, we can look at the drunk rape victim and use it as a lesson to other girls, we can't do that with home invasion. The guy did not "contribute" by having a home, or a nice TV.

I am not talking about the initial crime, I am talking about the escalation. A mugging that becomes a murder because the victim tried to pull a gun, spooked the criminal and got shot because of it. The mugging was essentially unavoidable, but had the victim not tried to play super hero, they would still be alive. That victim, still the victim of a crime, put themself into a worse position by provoking the criminal in the form of pulling a gun.

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 05:58:34 Reply

At 4/24/11 10:35 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Wolven Bear, you are plain pathetic... I won't bother quoting your post, because your lack of intelligence is just stunning....

You won't bother debating me because you are too stupid to do so. It's cool. I get it.

But please stop pretending it's because I'm not more intelligent than you. No one on your side of the aisle buys it. And even you know you're too stupid to debate me. So just admit it. You're a retard tryingto play intelligence games with the big boys.

At 4/24/11 11:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Knives construct by cutting. They can be used the precision needed to destroy in a manner that is actually constructive. Guns just cannot.

Incorrect, as shown above. On all counts.

Actually swords are meant to fight with. That's what a sword is. That is why they were invented. Just because decorative swords are made does not change their desctructive intent.

Actually it does. If a sword is made WITHOUT sharp blades, it is NOT a weapon of destruction.
You're wrong.

I wouldn't consider dynamite to be constructive. Dynamite was made for destructive purposes, adn that what it does.

Clearing the way for roads isn't contructive? Destroying worthless buildings to make new ones doesn't count?

You're being silly.


The animal lover thing is a lame argument. I am sure you can find anybody to beliueve anything, so taking a fringe group doesn't change anything. Kitchen knives are meant to construct by deduction.

No, it's the same argument, just made to a higher extreme.

How does a bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound not harmful? Firing a bullet is the goal of guns. Bullets cause harm to their targets. That is the intent aand purpose of guns.

So, you are now claiming that saving life is not useful or constructive?

We're done here.


Joe Biden is not change. He's more of the same.

The-universe
The-universe
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 08:48:37 Reply

At 3/20/11 03:29 PM, NHT123 wrote: Problem is, most murderers get their guns illegally from the States. What can we do?

Or increase efficiency when people cross the border.


It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.

Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 11:16:59 Reply

At 4/25/11 05:58 AM, WolvenBear wrote: We're done here.

You're right. Apparently NG has lost its ability to see nuance and make differentiations other than black and white.

The-universe
The-universe
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 13:38:15 Reply

At 4/25/11 11:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/25/11 05:58 AM, WolvenBear wrote: We're done here.
You're right. Apparently NG has lost its ability to see nuance and make differentiations other than black and white.

Has he gone through the process of claiming he's right and smarter than the person(s) he's quoting while also criticising someone else for saying they're smarter and right without them ever saying it?...or supplying quotations whenever he accuses someone of saying something.

Point is, don't feed the troll!


It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.

Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.

HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 14:06:46 Reply

At 4/25/11 05:58 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You won't bother debating me because you are too stupid to do so. It's cool. I get it.

If you are too dumb to realise that we haven't been debating for the last 10 posts we have exchanged, you should ask yourself who's the fucking idiot here.

But please stop pretending it's because I'm not more intelligent than you. No one on your side of the aisle buys it. And even you know you're too stupid to debate me. So just admit it. You're a retard tryingto play intelligence games with the big boys.

Shut the fuck up already! You are pathetic and now you are trying to use an Argumentum ad populum. Stop being such a lazy mother fucker. You are a braindead piece of shit, just admit it.

You should really start actually ARGUING. Because you are a pathetic scumbag. Nobody is showing support to me OR TO YOU, because what we are doing is plain fucking ridiculous. You have no fucking right to insult me like you do. You don't know me, you don't know what I do with my life and how well I perform in political debates. A lot of people come talking to me after class because they like how I debate with teachers... hell I even met a girl that way. I'm also pretty sure you've not even looked at any of my other posts on Newgrounds. Your stupid claim is that YOU should be more intelligent then I am, but you couldn't quote the part where I said anything that would make me stupid, and the most obvious part, is that YOU never said anything that could proove you any better then I am. Because from post one, the only thing you ever did was insult me because I don't share points of view with you.

You are pathetic, cause you seem to believe that your litterature is so great, that it has definitely concluded on one of the biggest matters of occidental countries... which is gun control... But you are wrong, I have PHDs teachers who are against gun control. So while this is not an argument, stop claiming that we are wrong and that you are right. This just prooves how much of an hypocritical douche you are... Intelligent people listen, try to understand and learn so they can make a better opinion. Turning down people because they don't share points of views with you, is a sign of very limited intelligence. You are close-minded and pathetic... You are not trying to debate, you are trying to force your opinion onto others. This is not the way of an intelligent individual. Never should insults come in a debate, because you won't ever convince anyone that your point is right if you start a war.

You might have the brain to get a little support to your arguments, but you fail badly in debates, and fail to use your intelligence properly. All you did so far, is try to convince everybody that they are wrong, rejecting any good argument against weapons by claiming they are silly for random reasons. Just shut the fuck up already, you are ruinning this thread with your insults.

Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 16:55:21 Reply

At 4/7/11 07:07 PM, JoS wrote: You are 4.5 times more likely to get shot if you are carrying a gun then if you are unarmed.
Linky

I've got a bone to pick with you on this, and reading through this topic, I'm amazed nobody has picked up on this by now.

Why did you go and link to a study done in what is considered one of the most dangerous cities in America, and apply the findings to Canada as a whole, hm? With all the close regulation and tight controls on which citizens can own what guns in Canada, what are the chances of a criminal shooting back if somebody with a conceal carry permit were to pull their gun out? What are my chances of being mugged at gun point in Canada, anyway?

If I wanted to, I could very easily bring up the fact that there would be no appreciable difference in the rate of gun crimes in Canada by pointing to how there wasn't much of one here in America after the Assault Weapon Ban expired, and it would be an applicable example to apply to Canada by your logic.

At 4/19/11 03:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Making these weapons legal, will make the crime rate increase... or maybe just death by firearms increase... Even if most smuggled weapons are not found, at least if these weapons are illegal, when police officers find criminals with weapons, they can take them away from them before they can use it.

What difference does it make if you just arrest the guy with the gun and not the guy supplying him with the gun, hm? Oh, that's right, NONE. It makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, because the criminal element out there that is in the racket of supplying the weapons is still in business. It's about as ludicrous as when I turn on the evening news to see they've seized captured drug runners going through Nashville with a ton and a half of Marijuana and they call it a "major victory in the drug war." No it's not, because the guys who grew all that pot ARE STILL IN BUSINESS, you've just made them lose some money on a shipment and now they have to go and hire new help.

Or better yet; arresting prostitutes on prostitution charges, and no going after the pimps that make them walk the street, or the Johns who hire them.

At 4/25/11 02:06 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Just shut the fuck up already, you are ruinning this thread with your insults.

Why don't you BOTH shut up, quit trolling each other, and either take this to PM's or go the general forum, mmkay?


BBS Signature
HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 18:01:57 Reply

At 4/25/11 04:55 PM, Proteas wrote: What difference does it make if you just arrest the guy with the gun and not the guy supplying him with the gun, hm? Oh, that's right, NONE. It makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, because the criminal element out there that is in the racket of supplying the weapons is still in business. It's about as ludicrous as when I turn on the evening news to see they've seized captured drug runners going through Nashville with a ton and a half of Marijuana and they call it a "major victory in the drug war." No it's not, because the guys who grew all that pot ARE STILL IN BUSINESS, you've just made them lose some money on a shipment and now they have to go and hire new help.

Stopping the production of drugs is quite hard, especially considering the fact that drugs come from all over the planet. I don't know where you are trying to go with this. Are you claiming that we should stop gun production? Or try to fight the smugglers?

I also really don't remember when I said only those who owned weapons should be arrested...

See, I'm still coming here to debate and hear what you guys have to say. If you have some kind of proofs that an easiest access to weapons would make things better, than I'll consider the different points of view on the matter.

Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-25 18:21:49 Reply

At 4/25/11 06:01 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I don't know where you are trying to go with this. Are you claiming that we should stop gun production? Or try to fight the smugglers?

I'm saying it's a useless exercise that only serves to give local politicians a good PR boost. It's a joke.


BBS Signature
B151
B151
  • Member since: Dec. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-27 16:59:37 Reply

At 4/24/11 10:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 4/24/11 09:06 AM, B151 wrote: Because she was definately acting slutty and had it coming right?
No, because she put herself in a bad situation.

The man who lives in a bad neighbourhood should expect to have his house broken into, because he put himself in a bad situation?

The cyclist who rides with traffic should expect to fight for their life after being clipped and ran over, because they put themself in a bad situation?

The woman who becomes intoxicated at a party should expect to get raped, because she put herself in a bad situation?

Crime is not the victims fault. Insinuating that someone 'asked for it' or contributed to their own becoming a victim is backwards thinking that the civilized world has been struggling to escape for years now.

Go away fool.

Never so long as you try to dismiss me so easily.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-29 13:10:36 Reply

At 4/20/11 10:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/20/11 09:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: A car's first use is to transport people.
A weapon's first use is to kill people.
I believe you are wrong & in ONE instance I can prove it.
I think you are splitting hairs here. Duff is right. Cars number one intended use is for peaceful and harmless driving. the fact that it can be used others, or that the privilege may be abused does not change that. A gun's number one purpose is to shoot. It is to cause harm toward what it is aimed at. The fact that it is often used safely and not toward other humans does not change that.

To put it succinctly: Cars can be used to harm; guns are intended to harm.

;;;
No guns are also a deterent...you conveniently left that aspect of a gun out.
I don't actually blame you, it takes away from your argument, & I see through it....nice try though.
I've been away from NS for the past 4 days But in looking at our local news, we've had shootings every day for the last 2 weeks & 2 people are dead.
Before gun control legislation. Gun crime was very rare here.
That is no longer the case & as I see it, is proof that gun legislation is not working & is simply an additional expense (over 2 billion tax dollars spent on it) that could have been used for much more constructive programs, like Education, or Medical, infastructure renewal etc.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More