Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 60,131 Views
  • 1,682 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 06:49:58 Reply

At 4/23/07 03:07 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Because it is illogical and not factually supported. An opinion can be wrong in terms of factual "correctness."

No it is not "illogical" but it is counter-intuitive to some.

I have a clean record, attended and taught over 150 gun safety seminars, father of three who exercises his 2nd Amendment right. How much do you know about your other customers?"
1. A business has a right to refuse service.

Very true, but the point of the card is to start a dialogue between customer and business and let the business owner/manager know about the business they are losing.

2. YOU might have a clean record, you might be a safe gun owner, but your "right" to own a gun shouldn't trample on my right to a safe life.

Actually you do not need to put right in ""...it is spelled out in the Constitution right after the right to speech/assemble/religion/etc and before you get to unlawfal search/seizure, no quartering of troops or banning slavery.

As to your "right to a safe life"...nice hysteronics. How about those 30 people Cho killed in that engineering building? It was a gun free zone. How many people would be alive today if VT had been able to allow ex-military or someone other civilian who was rigorously trained to carry on a college campus? How many of those would be living a "safe life" right now if someone would've been able to shoot back after he shot-up his first classroom?

Furthermore, do you drive? Statistically speaking your right to a safe life is put more at risk every time you get behind the wheel of a car than by a CC holder. Hell there are probably more people in this country who have been endangered by vehicles suddenly crashing into their house or place of business/employment than have been endangered by a CC holder...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 07:21:52 Reply

At 4/24/07 06:33 AM, AzureFenrir wrote:
Hmmm. That's a hard one. Virgina Tech was teh paragon of gun control, yet 32 people died and more were injured. Hmmmmmm.......
Er...you aren't serious, right? Virginia Tech was located in a state with extremely lax gun laws, and the killer even used a legally obtained gun to commit the massacre. I see almost no reason how that event is any evidence against gun control.

Actually your comment is only correct on the surface, but when you look at the specifics you'll see that the person you are responding to has a point.

While VA has extremely lax gun control laws, the most liberal in the nation, the VT campus has strict gun control regulations in that even CC holders are/were prohibited from having their weapons on campus. Therefore you could say that VT was a microcosom of the most prohibitive sort of gun control: an area with an outright gun ban.

Cho was able to procure a weapon from outside the gun ban area and bring it into said area. The students and professors in that engineering building were then trapped by Cho and could offer little other than passive defense (blocking the door...often sacrificing at least one life.

The point here is "what if": what if a CC holder would've had his handgun and been able to put up a more active and effective defense by shooting Cho before he had shot many of those 30 people. Furthermore, how many of those people who would be shot before our hypothetical gun nut took out Cho would still be alive because EMTs would have been able to provide care sooner?

However we will never know because of VA's gun control law against allowing CC holders to carry on campus...

So you see VT does in fact offer up a good example of the ineffectiveness of gun control...or at the very least provides a good basis to question it.


I would like to see this "mounds of evidence," since none of the gun proponents that I encountered had offered anything close to actual evidence yet.

* In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

* Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

* In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.

* The most dramatic falls in murder rates were in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high.

* The study found that for every woman who carries a concealed hand, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would have if one more man had carried a concealed gun.

* If states with concealed handgun bans had allowed them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

* In addition, the researchers found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides in states with concealed carry laws.

SOURCE: Study done by U of Chicago

Here's an interesting link on the rationality of the assault rifle ban published in the Journal of Contemporary Law

Here's an interesting read on The Racist Roots of Gun Control...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
AzureFenrir
AzureFenrir
  • Member since: Apr. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 08:02:45 Reply

At 4/24/07 07:21 AM, TheMason wrote: The point here is "what if": what if a CC holder would've had his handgun and been able to put up a more active and effective defense by shooting Cho before he had shot many of those 30 people. Furthermore, how many of those people who would be shot before our hypothetical gun nut took out Cho would still be alive because EMTs would have been able to provide care sooner?

The "what if" can also be applied in other ways. Assume that Virginia were to have, for conveinence, the gun control policies that I support (namely, requiring permits to possess guns, since that is the most relevant here), Cho may not have been able to secure a gun to use in the shooting. He may have been able to get one from the black market, but he may also be discouraged and decide to commit the massacre using a melee weapon instead, which can be stopped by people.

There's also the "what if" of - even if the students were allowed to bring guns, would they be able to gather the nerves to shoot back in such a situation? If they had such courage, wouldn't they also be able to mass jump Cho and disable/disarm him with manpower? There's too many "what if"'s in VA that it could not plausibly be used to argue for either side.

[Stuff]
SOURCE: Study done by U of Chicago

I love you, you're the first person that I came across that actually referenced any proof on any aspect of gun control. I will not try to disprove that source, nor do I disagree with it, for that matter. I simply believe in the requirement of permits to carry guns, enforcing records on gun sales and transfers to aid in investigations, as well as having stricter anti-juvenile gun possession laws/education.

Either way, the article has proven that allowing the possession of concealed arms is statistically beneficial. It does say nothing about other forms of gun control, such as the regulatory measures that I support. Thus, many aspects of the issue is still under debate.

Here's an interesting link on the rationality of the assault rifle ban published in the Journal of Contemporary Law

I guess the paper offered proof that would link assault rifles with handguns, this discrediting people who are against allowing assault weapons. I didn't have time to actually read the essay in detail though, so I'll reserve commenting on it until I come back from class.

Here's an interesting read on The Racist Roots of Gun Control...

Interesting, although that's not really relevant to the argument.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 11:15:32 Reply

At 4/24/07 12:48 AM, Memorize wrote: Now tell me, why would we then waste billions enforcing gun laws when your "statistical analysis" says there will be no difference?

In order to keep known crazies and violent offenders from getting them easily. That's about it. Had you read my shit, you'd know I'm not calling for tighter gun control, just a registration system for firearms, and a tight watch on gun shop owners, which as cell has shown with his sources, provide the majority of illegal firearms to criminals.

Of course, you wouldn't even know anything I've said in this thread, seeing as how you never read posts that people make.
Unfounded statement.

Well, since you seem to be assuming that I'm advocating tighter gun control, there's one, not to mention your next statement...

I will only when others provide a source as well. If they don't, why should I?

I've been providing plenty of sources for shit I've been saying.

In any case, what I'm really calling for isn't more gun control, if anything, it's less gun control implemented in a more effective way. What's the point trying to keep things like handguns out of the hands of responsible, legal owners, when in reality, it's usually illegally acquired firearms being used in crimes?

poxpower
poxpower
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 11:25:51 Reply

At 4/24/07 08:02 AM, AzureFenrir wrote:
There's also the "what if" of - even if the students were allowed to bring guns, would they be able to gather the nerves to shoot back in such a situation? If they had such courage, wouldn't they also be able to mass jump Cho and disable/disarm him with manpower? There's too many "what if"'s in VA that it could not plausibly be used to argue for either side.

Well I'm pretty sure they would have put a lot of holes into him well before he had killed 32 people.
But then maybe it would have turned into a giant massacre because everyone would be like "holy shit who's the shooter???" since everyone would have guns.

So actually maybe everyone would be dead right now, not to mention the property damage.
In conclusion: don't let people carry guns around all the time haha. Especially not college kids. Jesus Christ can you imagine the accidents just at the drunk parties???


BBS Signature
Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 13:18:10 Reply

At 4/24/07 06:37 AM, TheMason wrote: Also did you know that a cop is not required to intervene on your behalf if they feel that their life or well-being are put at undo risk?

Dammit, you beat me to the punch.

The only thing that I would add is that it's not the job of the police to protect the populace at large, if it was we'd each have our own personal police bodyguard to accompany us everywhere we went. No, the three main duties of your local police department is to arrest, investigate, and clean up the mess after the fact. They are not bodyguards, they're overpaid janitors who attempt to enforce the law.


BBS Signature
WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 15:11:33 Reply

At 4/24/07 06:33 AM, AzureFenrir wrote: There are also tons of mass murders committed by people with guns, and tons of mass murders committed by people with weapons such as autos and baseball bats. There are also hundreds stopped by ordinary citizens brandishing baseball bats or heavy objects as well as hundreds of murders stopped by ordinary citizens with guns. Card-stacking isn't a valid argument in support of gun control.

There AREN'T tons of mass murders committed with baseball bats. A baseball bat would break after beating one or two people to death. A baseball bat mass murder isn't feasible, whereas a gun or car one is.
Likewize there aren't hundreds of examples of people with baseball bats stopping mass shootings.

What the mound of evidence shows is that mass shootings that rack up a large amount of victims do it in "gun free" zones, an against unarmed populous. Card stacking (or looking at the evidence and seeing that it supports your theory) is indeed a valid argument against gun control.


Besides, gun control does not equal gun ban. Even if that argument isn't card-stacked, it only offers evidence against gun ban.

If a gun ban in and of itself isn't going to work, then banning guns incrementally isn't going to work either.

Er...you aren't serious, right? Virginia Tech was located in a state with extremely lax gun laws, and the killer even used a legally obtained gun to commit the massacre. I see almost no reason how that event is any evidence against gun control.

Because the rest of the student body was unarmed, following the rules of the university. To people who don't want to be expelled or fired, they will follow the rules. To someone who plans on...oh say...murdering 32 students then killing himself, a ban is irrelevant.

I would like to see this "mounds of evidence," since none of the gun proponents that I encountered had offered anything close to actual evidence yet.

Sure they have. You call it card stacking. Normal people call it evidence.

For example:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/latestnews/200741 8/45560.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/2628397.s tm

Wow! Shootings happen in places where guns are banned! Miraculous!
No no, really, take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "lalala".
Oh wait, you'll probably just say "card stacking", right?

At 4/24/07 08:02 AM, AzureFenrir wrote: The "what if" can also be applied in other ways. Assume that Virginia were to have, for conveinence, the gun control policies that I support (namely, requiring permits to possess guns, since that is the most relevant here), Cho may not have been able to secure a gun to use in the shooting. He may have been able to get one from the black market, but he may also be discouraged and decide to commit the massacre using a melee weapon instead, which can be stopped by people.

Everything that we know about Cho says that he was very determined. He found that he was able to only buy one gun a month. He then waited long enough to buy at least three guns (the two he used and one found in his room). He bought clips on the internet. If he'd have been denied on one front he'd have found another.


There's also the "what if" of - even if the students were allowed to bring guns, would they be able to gather the nerves to shoot back in such a situation? If they had such courage, wouldn't they also be able to mass jump Cho and disable/disarm him with manpower? There's too many "what if"'s in VA that it could not plausibly be used to argue for either side.

It's not so much a "what if", because out of a thousand people, surely one would've been bold enough to shoot back. We have plenty of examples of people taking down shooters when they themselves are armed. There's no reason to believe that this is different, especially given that we had some people brave enough to block the doors with their bodies, knowing this would be certain death. If the RA had been armed...this would've ended in teh dorms.

Interesting, although that's not really relevant to the argument.

No, but it is interesting to see where the debate started.
And it's interesting to note that everyone of the liberal elite that harps on how we need to ban guns, have guns for their own protection or have armed guards.


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

AzureFenrir
AzureFenrir
  • Member since: Apr. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 17:05:26 Reply

At 4/24/07 03:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote: There AREN'T tons of mass murders committed with baseball bats. A baseball bat would break after beating one or two people to death. A baseball bat mass murder isn't feasible, whereas a gun or car one is.
Likewize there aren't hundreds of examples of people with baseball bats stopping mass shootings.

I haven't seen any statistics on this issue, and while it's not hard to imagine mass murders being committed more frequently with more efficient weapons, there's also individual murders to consider, many of which add up to exceed the damage caused by these mass murders. These individual murders are committed with a lot of things, and equally stopped with a lot of things.

I've also not seen any statistics on people with guns stopping mass shootings exceeding people with other things. In my opinion, when faced with desparation, almost anything can be used as a defensive weapon, even against opponents bearing AK47's. If a person is courageous enough to take out a gun when hard-pressed, wouldn't he also be courageous enough to throw a flower pot at the attacker's face?

Of course, this is all speculative until actual evidence can be presented. In any case, I don't support banning of guns (well, maybe heavy artillery and military-grade guns like M-16s and sniper rifles). I simply support gun permits and a log of all firearm transactions to keep legal guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals and to ease tracking of crimes committed with said legal guns.

What the mound of evidence shows is that mass shootings that rack up a large amount of victims do it in "gun free" zones, an against unarmed populous. Card stacking (or looking at the evidence and seeing that it supports your theory) is indeed a valid argument against gun control.

And, of course, they are a valid argument against gun BAN. Gun control involves lots and lots of other things that has nothing to do with a ban. For example, requiring a drivers license-like permit to carry guns? I never denied that there are evidence against a strict outlawing of firearms, whether in part of in whole.

If a gun ban in and of itself isn't going to work, then banning guns incrementally isn't going to work either.

See above. Control =/= ban.

Because the rest of the student body was unarmed, following the rules of the university. To people who don't want to be expelled or fired, they will follow the rules. To someone who plans on...oh say...murdering 32 students then killing himself, a ban is irrelevant.

Perhaps it was also because of Virginia's lax gun laws that Cho was able to get his hands on one so easily. Perhaps even if the student body was armed, they would be too afraid to shoot back, just like they were too afraid to hide behind a desk and collectively throw textbooks at him in an attempt to knock him out. Perhaps if the student body was armed, there would be even more chaos.

As I said before, the Virginia Tech shooting has too many factors that could support both sides of the argument. Besides, gun control, once again, does not mean gun ban, NOR does it mean incremental gun ban, which is the same thing as a gun ban.

Sure they have. You call it card stacking. Normal people call it evidence.

For example:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/latestnews/200741 8/45560.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/2628397.s tm

Wow! Shootings happen in places where guns are banned! Miraculous!
No no, really, take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "lalala".
Oh wait, you'll probably just say "card stacking", right?

I actually noticed this little tidbit in your first link:

The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned.

Seriously, though, I have, ONCE AGAIN, never supported or defended gun BANS. MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO CELLARDOOR6'S POST CONCEDED THAT HE DID PROVIDE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO CONCLUDE THAT ***BANS*** ARE LIKELY TO NOT BE EFFECTIVE. I simply stated that he DID NOT provide enough support that OTHER ASPECTS OF GUN CONTROL, such as the one that JoS proposed (background checks and permits, namely), lead to higher crime rates. Thank you for not reading my posts, and thanks for that ad-hominem attack.

Everything that we know about Cho says that he was very determined. He found that he was able to only buy one gun a month. He then waited long enough to buy at least three guns (the two he used and one found in his room). He bought clips on the internet. If he'd have been denied on one front he'd have found another.

I give you this one. I need to do more research on Cho himself before I can say anything about it.

It's not so much a "what if", because out of a thousand people, surely one would've been bold enough to shoot back. We have plenty of examples of people taking down shooters when they themselves are armed. There's no reason to believe that this is different, especially given that we had some people brave enough to block the doors with their bodies, knowing this would be certain death. If the RA had been armed...this would've ended in teh dorms.

Surely one should also be brave enough to realize that they can throw stuff at the shooter to distract them. Books work pretty well, and so do chairs, since all you need to do is inflict enough pain so that Cho drops his weapon. There's other what-if debates there, but there's nothing conclusive that would show that the massacre would be stopped if the students were allowed to bring guns. Every argument that we could make is nothing more than speculative.

HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 17:17:37 Reply

At 4/24/07 03:11 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
There AREN'T tons of mass murders committed with baseball bats. A baseball bat would break after beating one or two people to death. A baseball bat mass murder isn't feasible, whereas a gun or car one is.

Well, well, look at that. Exactly. Since a baseball bat mass murdering spree isn't feasible, any claim to ban baseball bats would be highly suspect. However...since guns are built to kill, getting rid of them (or, at the least, enforcing and restricting them) is the solution.

Likewize there aren't hundreds of examples of people with baseball bats stopping mass shootings.

As if there are numerous examples of civillians with guns stopping mass shootings? There are more examples of those people killing family, friends, themselves or starting mass shootings.

And it's interesting to note that everyone of the liberal elite that harps on how we need to ban guns, have guns for their own protection or have armed guards.

That's a specious claim. I don't have guns or armed guards...

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 18:05:43 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:05 PM, AzureFenrir wrote: I haven't seen any statistics on this issue, and while it's not hard to imagine mass murders being committed more frequently with more efficient weapons, there's also individual murders to consider, many of which add up to exceed the damage caused by these mass murders. These individual murders are committed with a lot of things, and equally stopped with a lot of things.

It's also a lot easier to kill a single person than it is a group of people. With a knife, you can sneak up on the person, and by the time they notice you, they're trying to hold their throat together. Trying to walk up to a crowd and stab multiple people to death is a tad trickier.

A lot of individual criminals are deterred by GUNS. When confronting a little old lady, she's just not as scary with a knife as is the 6'5 280lbs guy with a knife. Nor is she as dangerous.
http://www.handguncontrol.net/fear_of_the_arm ed_citizen.htm
Criminals don't want confrontation. They choose what they think will be weak, easy victims.
Guns are also a reason why many crimes are aborted. As many as 2.5 million crimes a year (probably a tad bloated) are stopped by lawful gun owners every year.
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm


I've also not seen any statistics on people with guns stopping mass shootings exceeding people with other things. In my opinion, when faced with desparation, almost anything can be used as a defensive weapon, even against opponents bearing AK47's. If a person is courageous enough to take out a gun when hard-pressed, wouldn't he also be courageous enough to throw a flower pot at the attacker's face?

Well, your opinion isn't supported by fact. How many incidents of mass shooting have been stopped by people with flower pots? Hockey sticks? Frying pans? Can't find any you say?
The people who take on shooters are generally not desperate. They are cool and collected, because they are prepared to defend themselves. And they have the means. Of course people aren't going to grab a flower pot and rush the killer coming down the hallway. They'd be dead before they got halfway to him.

And, of course, they are a valid argument against gun BAN. Gun control involves lots and lots of other things that has nothing to do with a ban. For example, requiring a drivers license-like permit to carry guns? I never denied that there are evidence against a strict outlawing of firearms, whether in part of in whole.

But what you don't say is how demanding a permit would help. Most street punks break the laws we have in place, so demandign they do ONE MORE THING that they will ignore won't really help.

Perhaps it was also because of Virginia's lax gun laws that Cho was able to get his hands on one so easily. Perhaps even if the student body was armed, they would be too afraid to shoot back, just like they were too afraid to hide behind a desk and collectively throw textbooks at him in an attempt to knock him out. Perhaps if the student body was armed, there would be even more chaos.

Perhaps space monkeys will decend on Cincinatti and kill us all with nickles.

That's stupid. I tell you what. I'm gonna come and start shooting at you, but I'll be nice, I'll let you throw a book first. Doesn't sound too attractive does it. At best, you're going to piss me off before I kill you. You're certainly not going to knock out a killer with a text book. Heck, in the time it takes to expose yourself, cock your arm and aim, you've been shot 6 times.

It wasn't Virginia's lax laws, because they made Cho wait two months to do his crime. He ordered clips and ammo online from Iowa. Cho was going to get his guns.
There are no examples of shootings going WORSE because the victims are armed. None. All there are is examples of the shooter being shot by an armed citizen.


As I said before, the Virginia Tech shooting has too many factors that could support both sides of the argument. Besides, gun control, once again, does not mean gun ban, NOR does it mean incremental gun ban, which is the same thing as a gun ban.

There was one factor in VA Tech: Cho was armed, his victims weren't. The results: 32 dead, 29 (maybe more) injured. You can speculate all you want, but if VA Tech was not a gun free zone, we wouldn't have the massive body count that we do.

Thank you for not reading my posts, and thanks for that ad-hominem attack.

Ad hominim means personal attack. I was attacking your argument. (And yes, I didn't read through multiple pages, but then again, they weren't terribly relevant.) When I mentioned that the multitude of examples support my claim, and by proxy cellardoors, you called it "card stacking" and said it meant nothing.

No ad hominim.
But if we're not allowed to look at the general trend of events, the thousands and thousands of actual events that happen in real life...we're just arguing theory.

I give you this one. I need to do more research on Cho himself before I can say anything about it.

He'd been planning this for quite sometime. The media likes to peddle the idea that he came up with this idea the night before, ran out and bought all his stuff and did the crime. But Virginia's "lax laws" made it to where he had to wait two months to get the guns he wanted. The "one gun a month" law didn't work here. The background check didn't work. The gun free zone didn't work. These are three laws that while not quite bans, are gun control. None worked.

Surely one should also be brave enough to realize that they can throw stuff at the shooter to distract them. Books work pretty well, and so do chairs, since all you need to do is inflict enough pain so that Cho drops his weapon. There's other what-if debates there, but there's nothing conclusive that would show that the massacre would be stopped if the students were allowed to bring guns. Every argument that we could make is nothing more than speculative.

That's not a debate tho. You're not going to make a shooter drop his weapon with a book. Dude kicks in the door and starts shooting, and you're gonna grab a copy of Harry Potter? Either you don't have much real world experience with guns, or you care more about theory than reality. Gun beats book every time. Read above on why this silly argument fails. I can shoot you from much farther away than you can throw a chair or book.
It's not speculation here bud. Cho knew he had defenseless victims (he gloats about it on his tape) and he took advantage of it. He was a coward. The very arming of VA Tech students might've been enough to dissuade him. If not, one of them would've shot him dead or injured him. We never see a mass shooting where all the victims are armed. It just doesn't happen. Ever.


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 Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 18:12:17 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:17 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Well, well, look at that. Exactly. Since a baseball bat mass murdering spree isn't feasible, any claim to ban baseball bats would be highly suspect. However...since guns are built to kill, getting rid of them (or, at the least, enforcing and restricting them) is the solution.

Yet, New York city has done just that. Aluminum bats are now banned.
Regardless, since England has banned gun, violent crime has risen dramatically. So banning guns isn't the answer. Restricting them doesn't work either, see Virginia.

As if there are numerous examples of civillians with guns stopping mass shootings? There are more examples of those people killing family, friends, themselves or starting mass shootings.

Yea, there are thousands of examples every month of people with guns stopping crime, normally by defending themselves.
I know you're trying to live up to your name here, but there are more examples of people stopping mass shootings with a gun than people doing mass shootings.
The vaunted "OH MY GOD THEY KILLED THEIR SISTER" example is mostly bogus too. For example, if I come into your house and shoot your sister (assuming you have one), then you shoot me, your sister falls into the category of "shootings within the home" (After all, you had a gun and she got shot). If, furthermore, you know me and consider me your friend, I then fall under the category of "victim known to the assailant", (after all I was your friend, and you shot me...my shooting your sister doesn't matter much for stats).
When you consider that in most rapes and murders, the victim knows the attacker...then in any case where they defend themselves with a gun, they are shooting an aquiantance.

That's a specious claim. I don't have guns or armed guards...

And you're not part of the liberal elite. Unless I missed something and you're either a famous celebrity or a law maker...


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

novel
novel
  • Member since: Dec. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 18:33:41 Reply

I consider myself a liberal but I too agree that gun control is pointless and doesn't work. Mass shootings don't happen because guns are easy to get, they happen because guns exist and people want to do mass shootings! The theory that banning guns would make mass shootings impossible is rediculous. Drugs are illegal and people are still able to use them, so how would making guns illegal be any different? With this kind of government, you can't make anything go away by banning it, you can only shift it to the black market.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 20:17:02 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:17 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
Well, well, look at that. Exactly. Since a baseball bat mass murdering spree isn't feasible, any claim to ban baseball bats would be highly suspect. However...since guns are built to kill, getting rid of them (or, at the least, enforcing and restricting them) is the solution.

well, let's see. if you take away the guns, then the next more effective thing will be used. bombs. making a bomb is simple, even easier to make than a gun, and when set off in a crowded area, kills many people. just imagine a guy with a bomb in his satchel at school, walks by a crowd of people he hates and sets it off. or worse, he leaves the bag at the school, attaches a short range radio, and when he hears the sounds of nearby people, sets it off. or even worse, places a timer on the bomb, leaves it behind in a classroom, and in the next class it goes off. Guns aren't do bad.

As if there are numerous examples of civillians with guns stopping mass shootings? There are more examples of those people killing family, friends, themselves or starting mass shootings.

well, you also ignore the fact that most mass shootings take place in an area full of unarmed people, so how is disarming people going to stop that? if you can't obtain it legally, just get it illegally.


And it's interesting to note that everyone of the liberal elite that harps on how we need to ban guns, have guns for their own protection or have armed guards.
That's a specious claim. I don't have guns or armed guards...

you're also common folk. Look at Rosie O'donnel, who supports a total gun ban... except her kids bodyguard is armed. hypocritical.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 21:06:02 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:15 AM, Elfer wrote:
In order to keep known crazies and violent offenders from getting them easily. That's about it. Had you read my shit, you'd know I'm not calling for tighter gun control, just a registration system for firearms, and a tight watch on gun shop owners, which as cell has shown with his sources, provide the majority of illegal firearms to criminals.

That's all fine and dandy.

I've been providing plenty of sources for shit I've been saying.

You asked me a question which didn't relate to you. So I answered the question which was directed in no way, towards you.

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 21:23:04 Reply

Yeah whatevs. We seem to be relatively in agreement here.

Boltrig
Boltrig
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 22:32:51 Reply

I just saw Korrikens post containing a hypothetical housebreaking situation from way back on the thread.

There was a piece in a national newspaper that I remember seeing and agreeing with completely.

Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,

Makes sense to me
WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 23:41:30 Reply

At 4/24/07 10:32 PM, Boltrig wrote: Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,

Awesome! One shot! Better not miss...cause the perp sure as hell didn't bring only one bullet.

Who cares how well it works...its an alternative!


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

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 23:42:14 Reply

At 4/24/07 10:32 PM, Boltrig wrote:
Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,

I think i'd rather just shoot and kill them on the off chance they try to sue me in court.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 23:56:00 Reply

I personally prefer my .410 with a slug to any taser, taser has short range, 1 shot, bad accuracy, and if they wear protective clothing, it can be rendered harmless.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Boltrig
Boltrig
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-24 23:59:11 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:41 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 4/24/07 10:32 PM, Boltrig wrote: Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,
Awesome! One shot! Better not miss...cause the perp sure as hell didn't bring only one bullet.

Who cares how well it works...its an alternative!

Look, at least Im putting forward an alternative. Gun ownership doesnt cause such a stirring of emotion in the UK, so its an alternative to bringing back firearms.

By your logic, anythings better than being completely unarmed.

At 4/24/07 11:42 PM, Memorize wrote:
I think i'd rather just shoot and kill them on the off chance they try to sue me in court.

Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 00:08:35 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:59 PM, Boltrig wrote:
Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

And you support that because...?

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 00:18:06 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:59 PM, Boltrig wrote: Look, at least Im putting forward an alternative. Gun ownership doesnt cause such a stirring of emotion in the UK, so its an alternative to bringing back firearms.
By your logic, anythings better than being completely unarmed.

Sorry chief but...No, my logic is that having a gun is a better option than not having a gun. The people before me wrote just why long range tazers are useless.

Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

We need to do away with that. There's something insane about putting someone in jail for shooting an intruder.


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

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 00:32:57 Reply

At 4/24/07 11:59 PM, Boltrig wrote:
At 4/24/07 11:41 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
At 4/24/07 10:32 PM, Boltrig wrote: Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,
Awesome! One shot! Better not miss...cause the perp sure as hell didn't bring only one bullet.

Who cares how well it works...its an alternative!
Look, at least Im putting forward an alternative. Gun ownership doesnt cause such a stirring of emotion in the UK, so its an alternative to bringing back firearms.

lack of backbone often does that to a nation. put the squeeze on smuggling, get rid of the drug dealers, and rehab your drug addicts and see what happens. crime will probably plummet when gangs no longer have a source of income. it's easier said than done, but what we need is tougher methods of dealing with the actual smugglers. without smugglers things like Heroin, Cocaine, and opiates will pretty much disappear and crime will plummet.

Ever wonder why many of the asian nations execute drug traffickers? it's because they see the threat that drugs are, and they deal with it in the best way possible. get rid of the traffickers.


By your logic, anythings better than being completely unarmed.

true enough, but personally I prefer equal footing, if not an advantage in a bad situation. I don't need a "moral high horse" I need self defense. gimme my gun, and let some fool barge through my front door at night and see what happens.


At 4/24/07 11:42 PM, Memorize wrote:
I think i'd rather just shoot and kill them on the off chance they try to sue me in court.
Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

that's european justice for you, support the criminal and punish the innocent. something about that just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense....


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

D2Kvirus
D2Kvirus
  • Member since: Jan. 31, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 38
Filmmaker
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 10:35:37 Reply

At 4/22/07 03:47 PM, Demosthenez wrote:
The only point is that the UK's gun crime is rising and the ban has not affected that. When did anyone ever argue the US has less gun violence than the UK?

And I repeat, the rising rate of gun crime in the UK still has deaths in double figures, while in the US it's in quintuple figures despite it dropping. You can't bring that up and hope to make something of it.

If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the UK, it means the deaths of seven or eight people.
If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the US, it means the deaths of 3000 people.

That's what I'm focused on - if guns were more strictly monitored, surely at least one digit could be slashed from that number?

The US hasnt been hit by terrorism in a few years. Other countries circumstances are immaterial when crafting domestic policy, which is exactly what I was addressing. So in effect all our legislation and efforts have made the United States safer if we want to limit our information like you did earlier with the "no big violence (but there is gang violence) in the UK since the ban" defense.

But there is no big violence, barring gang-related crime, in the UK. People don't get shot and killed in hold-ups, carjackings or whatever, yet they are more likely to in the US. Maybe it's the American nature to shot first and ask questions later, while in the UK we're probably too polite.

The fact that alot of gun crime in the UK can be attributed to a single London Borough, Hackney, is indicitive of this - although recent cases have been around Streatham and Peckham. Streatham and Peckham are next to each other in SE London (so there may well be a connection), while Hackney is in NE London - and also one of the poorest and most crime-ridden boroughs.


Propaganda is to a Democracy what violence is to a Dictatorship
Never underestimate the significance of "significant."
NG Politics Discussion 101

BBS Signature
WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 14:48:56 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:35 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the UK, it means the deaths of seven or eight people.
If the rate of gun-related deaths goes up 10% in the US, it means the deaths of 3000 people.

Yea, let's ignore the rest of the murders in London and only focus on the guns...


That's what I'm focused on - if guns were more strictly monitored, surely at least one digit could be slashed from that number?

Guns were strictly monitored on VA Tech. Didn't help them any.

But there is no big violence, barring gang-related crime, in the UK. People don't get shot and killed in hold-ups, carjackings or whatever, yet they are more likely to in the US. Maybe it's the American nature to shot first and ask questions later, while in the UK we're probably too polite.

The UK outdoes the US in all violent crime except murders. Rape robbery, and assault are all higher in the UK than here.


The fact that alot of gun crime in the UK can be attributed to a single London Borough, Hackney, is indicitive of this - although recent cases have been around Streatham and Peckham. Streatham and Peckham are next to each other in SE London (so there may well be a connection), while Hackney is in NE London - and also one of the poorest and most crime-ridden boroughs.

And this yet again ignores the real problem. Crime. Referring to it as gun crime is exceptionally foolish.


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

MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 15:08:03 Reply

At 4/25/07 10:35 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
At 4/22/07 03:47 PM, Demosthenez wrote:
But there is no big violence, barring gang-related crime, in the UK. People don't get shot and killed in hold-ups, carjackings or whatever, yet they are more likely to in the US. Maybe it's the American nature to shot first and ask questions later, while in the UK we're probably too polite.

Maybe it's just a different clash of cuture and customs.

The UK and America are very different but can be traced back towards mutual political though, economies and government as whole. Then when we split, we adopted, adapted and evolved in a harsh world where there were enemies on our homefront and our worlds.

The UK set out on an Imperial campaign. There fight was far from home. I mean, when was the last time that there was a real war or attack on the UK and England.

You would get the occasional IRA bombing and whatnot, but England has(and unless my history is faulty) enemy free. At least on the home front.

While I could bring up stereotypes about the English and thier constant need for order and governance, that wouldn't be as funny.

Were two different cultures in two different worlds. Of course were going to be different.


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 15:59:07 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:17 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
Likewize there aren't hundreds of examples of people with baseball bats stopping mass shootings.
As if there are numerous examples of civillians with guns stopping mass shootings? There are more examples of those people killing family, friends, themselves or starting mass shootings.

There is a problem with arguing this point: neither side can prove whether or not a course of action has stopped something. In reality you cannot be sure that the incidents of accidental shootings is higher than the incidents of mass murder prevention...

There is no way to prove it either way...


And it's interesting to note that everyone of the liberal elite that harps on how we need to ban guns, have guns for their own protection or have armed guards.
That's a specious claim. I don't have guns or armed guards...

The key word here is "elite"...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:08:07 Reply

At 4/24/07 05:05 PM, AzureFenrir wrote: Of course, this is all speculative until actual evidence can be presented. In any case, I don't support banning of guns (well, maybe heavy artillery and military-grade guns like M-16s and sniper rifles). I simply support gun permits and a log of all firearm transactions to keep legal guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals and to ease tracking of crimes committed with said legal guns.

Azure,

First of all let me say I understand you are not talking about banning guns in general. However, I do have a problem with you thoughts on M-16s and sniper rifles.

Did you realize that the USMC sniper rifle is in fact a modified civilian hunting rifle? One that you can buy at places like Wal-Mart and Bass Pro? Now I know you're probably thinking about the mods I mentioned. Well these involve things such as trigger pull and barrel rifling twist rates that increase accuracy, and not lethality. Sniper rifles and hunting rifles are often the same thing so if you ban sniper rifles you're going to also de facto ban hunting rifles as well...

Even large calibers such as the .50 do have civilian hunting applications: big game. However, the cost involved in permits, travel and the cost of the gun itself (starting at about $2,000) is prohibitive...

As for Assault Rifles, read my post about the (ir)rationality of the assault ban. And yes you CAN hunt legally with an AK-47 and it is practical and will NOT make the carcass unusable...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
HighlyIllogical
HighlyIllogical
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:24:06 Reply

At 4/25/07 02:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote:
Guns were strictly monitored on VA Tech. Didn't help them any.

Sure....

Then why could a MENTALLY ILL MAN, who was determined to be incompetent, get two guns?

WolvenBear
WolvenBear
  • Member since: Jun. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2007-04-25 16:34:59 Reply

At 4/25/07 04:24 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Sure....

Then why could a MENTALLY ILL MAN, who was determined to be incompetent, get two guns?

Because the rules of Virginia Tech don't apply to Virginia at large. Did he get the guns on campus? No you say? Right on, another strike for you!

And considering I've yet to hear about him being labeled "incompetent", whatever legal effect on his gun ownership that would have...

He was deemed to be a threat to himself or others, but the judge sentenced him to outpatient therapy (which he stopped), that (for whatever reason) did not get put on his record as a flag. Thus, when the background check was performed on him, no history of mental illness came up.
Not that any of that makes your point any more valid. But I thought I'd set you straight.


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