Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You seem to be going off topic rather often, and my 'it works in real life AND in theory' approach to gun control is all the evidence anyone should need. Also, I don't care if you're a Mason or a weapons expert, it has nothing to do with politics.

At 6/9/08 11:19 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You seem to be going off topic rather often, and my 'it works in real life AND in theory' approach to gun control is all the evidence anyone should need. Also, I don't care if you're a Mason or a weapons expert, it has nothing to do with politics.

I am going off topic rather often. The reason is I've been asked a few questions about Masonry in this thread and in IM. Considering you haven't given much in the way of concrete evidence to tear apart opens the door to a side-bar discussion.

Actually you have not proven that it works in either theory or real life. The reason is your theory has been time and again shot down because of all the holes in it. Furthermore, it has been shown that in real-world situations it is not effective. I am taking a macro-NG Politics BBS approach here because every time some one says the same things as you...it has been dispensed with.

Yes the US has the highest gun death rate in the Western world. However, when you look at the standard deviation it is not a significant outlier. Therefore the premise that we have a gun problem is erroneous. There goes your strongest argument...that it works elsewhere in places that do not have the same social make-up and attendant issues or even geographical position. There goes your "real-life" observations.

Secondly, the vast majority of gun crime is committed by a guns that find their way into criminal hands in such a fashion that background checks could not prevent. The illicit gun trade would be unaffected by background checks. Furthermore, the 1994 assault rifle ban and waiting periods have been shown to have NO effect upon crime rates. Finally, in the US areas that guns have been outright banned have been shown to be the most violent areas of the country. The reason being a gang culture taking root in an impoverished area with limited educational opportunities as well as easy access to an illicit trade in guns. There goes your theory that we need more background checks.

We have testimony of gang bangers who want gun control because they think it is a joke. We also have prison interviews and government statistical data that show what types of guns are used in crime and where they come from. What these show are background checks won't stop gun violence, nor will any other gun-control measure taken by the anti-gunners. There goes BOTH of your argument's theory and real-life observations.

As I've said before, automobile safety, drunk driving and fuel consumption are by FAR more of a problem than gun crime. About 3x more Americans die a year as a result of car accidents than by guns. If the trend would go national of charging drunk drivers with murder then more Americans would officially be murdered each year by cars than are murdered by guns. Then there are secondary public health concerns caused by pollution.

In short, there is no viable real-world or theoretical reason to be concerned about guns or spend time and money in a futile attempt to solve the problem by creating more gun control legislation.

Finally, it is funny how people want to downplay the relevance of expertise and qualifications when the experts are on the other side. Me being a weapons expert has a direct impact on the validity of my assesment of this issue and the quality of my opinion. As does the fact that I'm a political scientist. You have a good point that me being a Mason has no impact on politics, but it was afterall an ad hominem attempt at obfuscation launched by your side and continued by you. But my familiarity with weapons coupled with my knowledge of how the system works coupled with my training in interpreting the relevent data...does bear directly upon this discussion.

At 6/9/08 09:35 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Also, I do have something to back up my original argument. in Europe and most of Asia, there are gun bans and limitations. There are less shooting deaths there. I don't need to argue about theories when a real-life example is a plane ride away. Communism works in theory, but we all know how that turned out. There are slightly different circumstances regarding the US, but they do not destroy the credibility that it works for the rest of the world. The same can go for limiting government size, the UN, and gay marriage.

That's weak argument. The gun deaths were less BEFORE the ban Since th gun ban they have gone up. Try again.

At 6/9/08 11:19 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: You seem to be going off topic rather often, and my 'it works in real life AND in theory' approach to gun control is all the evidence anyone should need. Also, I don't care if you're a Mason or a weapons expert, it has nothing to do with politics.

It DOESNT work in real life. In England, since the ban, violent crimes went up. The most violent areas in teh US have a no carry policy.

Links WolvenBear? Don't link to individual incidences, I'd like a chart.

At 6/10/08 09:59 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Links WolvenBear? Don't link to individual incidences, I'd like a chart.

The trend in England is hardly isolated incidences. It's a systematic pattern.

England:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit ics/2640817.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5986 6,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engla nd/london/7051458.stm
(The rise of police solvency leads to the crime reductions in this article.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/
08/07/guns-usat.htm

I'm sorry. I'd go further. Buttil you offer me a counter argument,I fell no need.

United States Constitution: Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

United States Constitution: Article I
(Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.)

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

I agree with you completely!!!

At 6/10/08 05:04 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote: United States Constitution: Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"shall not be infringed" is the pivot phrase in this issue.

United States Constitution: Article I
(Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.)

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Ok, the precedent on this article is the (legislature) has (the) responsibility to maintain certain duties under pain of dereliction of these basic principles required of the government. The citizenry... or as termed MILITIA (:: 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.) ... can be charged with maintaining and preserving the principle laws and solidarity of the union from insurrection and invasion.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

therefor, any act of repeal or undue burdensome regulation is in fact contradictory to a responsibility to maintaining the principles for maintaining the ready state of the militia.

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

In summery, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our future generations.

The facts of this argument, though obscured by an over simplified knee-jerk reaction to crime, remains a basic need to have a diligent and independent citizenry capable of maintaining and preserving the common defense. Independently capable during times of anarchy and chaos, of defending the right to survive, without needing the government to immediately intervene on your behalf.

I'm sorry. I'd go further. Buttil you offer me a counter argument,I fell no need.

Now for every other country with a gun ban. If it's a systematic pattern, you should have no problem.

At 6/10/08 06:43 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Now for every other country with a gun ban. If it's a systematic pattern, you should have no problem.

yeah thats a real counter argument

At 6/10/08 06:47 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/10/08 06:43 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Now for every other country with a gun ban. If it's a systematic pattern, you should have no problem.

yeah thats a real counter argument

Britain is Britain, as I said before. If he wants to prove gun restrictions are harmful, then he's going to have to show charts for every country and prove that the gun ban caused an increase in shooting deaths. Remember- I'm talking about gun LIMITATIONS, not bans.

IMO, what wolvens data has shown is that gun control has virtually no effect on dettering crime, because gun control laws can be both high and low [changed to and from or remain] and places will have different levels of crime regardless. Britians crime rates are going up and their gun control laws remain tight, it leads me to beleive that there is more economics involved than simply law enforcement.

So why exactly is it important to make laws which data shows have 0 effect, that do nothing except increase government power?

Because I said nothing about banning guns, only increasing the criteria to obtaining them. Even then, guns restrictions are implemented in many countries, Britain is only one.

At 6/10/08 10:31 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Because I said nothing about banning guns, only increasing the criteria to obtaining them. Even then, guns restrictions are implemented in many countries, Britain is only one.

You do realize that such laws will not affect those who do obtain such weapons illegally, don't you?

You do realize that such laws will not affect those who do obtain such weapons illegally, don't you?

I'm quite aware of that. On another note-

Urban renewal projects would get rid of many ghettos, therefor reducing the number of addle-minded youths and therefor the crime rate. Of course, nobody would ever listen to me.

There are many nations that have a higher guns per citizen rate than the US, but still isn't troubled by the mass shootings that makes everyone paranoid. Weapons are tools, and if a crazy man gets lethal weapons, then crazy things will happen.

Personally (not being a US citizen, just rambling here) I think that all the focus which now is on gun control should be directed to means to improve mental health services. Removing the people willing to pull the triggers would be much better than removing the triggers. National Mental Health care should be much more effective.

That said, weapons should be restricted nevertheless. A psycopathic maniac will murder anyways if unchecked, a weapon only determines how much damage he will cause before being stopped (Legalizing hand held atomic grenade launchers would greatly improve the defensive qualities of the nation, but when a massacre occurs the damages will be much more severe. Not that there is such a thing as atomic grenades, that I know of :P ). As for having civilians armed against crime, there is a reason to why there is a police force. Having every home armed to the teeth means that every criminal willing to go to the steps of breaking into those homes will also be armed to the teeth. The guns-for-everyone policy just lowers the treshold, it doesn't prevent anything. If it did the US should be devoid of any crime not done by homicidal lunatics bent on destruction.

As I said, I'm rambling, I know there are some contradictions ^^

At 6/10/08 11:30 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

You do realize that such laws will not affect those who do obtain such weapons illegally, don't you?

I'm quite aware of that. On another note-

Urban renewal projects would get rid of many ghettos, therefor reducing the number of addle-minded youths and therefor the crime rate. Of course, nobody would ever listen to me.

If throwing money at education and poverty was going to work it would have by now. The US has a comparatively high cost of education, but is getting some of the worst results. Most people on welfare have done nothing to remove themselves from it, in fact a fair percentage try to stay on it by declaring bankruptcy or forever having children.

Root of the social problems of America today stems from a national mentality. That of instant gratification with little personal responsibility.

Why do our education systems fail? Because instead of rewarding children who succeed and holding back those who fail, parents can now demand that their children be moved on from grade to grade until high school. While rewards for students who excel are removed to prevent anyone from feeling left out or "not special."

Why are their poor on the streets in a city full of jobs and ways to support yourself? (Mentally unstable aside) Because instead of setting goals or requirements of people on welfare the government would rather hand them money until they decide they don't want it.

Why are there more and more school shootings? Because instead of shaming the the shooters and honoring the victims the media barely mentions the victims and their families while sympathizing with the shooters and all the "ridicule" they had to endure.

Don't get me wrong money helps, but the amount of money already in play is astounding. Adding to it won't help solve the problem, it's only a band aide.

BurntFaceMan, if we spent one tenth of what we spend on the military on education, we could completely revamp this country's IQ scores. get rid of abstinence-only, have public schools in every city, stricter rules for mandatory attendance, ect. The Bush Administration has been (under)funding much less useful education programs, and the No Child Left Behind is a joke.

At 6/11/08 10:02 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: BurntFaceMan, if we spent one tenth of what we spend on the military on education, we could completely revamp this country's IQ scores. get rid of abstinence-only, have public schools in every city, stricter rules for mandatory attendance, ect. The Bush Administration has been (under)funding much less useful education programs, and the No Child Left Behind is a joke.

GNE,

Remember that the federal government is only a small part of your local school's funding. State and local funds constitute the majority of money flowing into a school. Therefore, I would argue that we are spending only a little less than what we need. Furthermore, being a teacher's son and educator-in-training I would make the argument that we need to remove the federal government from education. Efforts of both the Clinton and Bush administration have helped erode the school system. In states like Missouri where federal judges have wasted billions on social engineering programs such as artificial integration (bussing kids from their neighborhoods to suburbs about an hours bus ride away), the federal government needs to step back.

I totally agree with you that we need to rejuvenate inner cities and likewise provide more job training for poor rural kids. That will solve crime more than gun control.

And back to the topic at hand, I know you are talking about more limitations rather than an outright ban. I disagree for two reasons: 1) our current level of background checks is at the appropriate level and 2) limitations is often a code word for banning certain types of guns and ammo (which often fail because legislators have little or no technical knowledge).

I present you several hypothesis:

1) Gun Control Works
"More background checks will reduce crime. After all other developed countries have very strict gun control laws to include outright bans. The US comparatively has more liberal gun laws as well as the highest firearm homicide rate in the developed world. Therefore, gun control works."

Theory: It is parsiminous...easily understood and makes sense (it passes the giggle test). But beyond this there are several flaws. The US has a much larger land mass than the countries we are comparing which means different regions has different weather patterns, and believe it or not the FBI has linked crime rates to weather. Furthermore, we have a large loosely controlled border with a developing region where it is easy to obtain illicit goods for smuggling. Thus we routinely capture people smuggling drugs, people and firearms across our border. This means that prohibition efforts and other control measures are doomed to fail. Finally, the US' ELF score is much higher than the UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. What is ELF? It stands for Ethnic/Linguistic Factionalization. This is a measure political scientists specializing in International Relations and Comparative Politics use to measure things like stability, democratization and crime rates. A high ELF score correlates with high crime around the world.

In the end your hypothesis is not theoretically stable because there are a whole host of variables that suggest that gun control would be ineffective in the US.

Real World Data:
Lets begin by analyzing the history of gun control in the US. In 1900 there was none. A person could order guns through the mail. In 1911 Colt produced the first automatic handgun, a .45, which remains the standard by which all automatics are measured. In 1919 the Thompson Submachine gun was introduced and marketed to civilians through the Sears catalogue. This is the famous/infamous Tommy-gun. During this period the murder rate in New York City was about 1.2/100,000 people.

Then prohibition and the Great Depression hit and a crime wave hit the US. One of the government's reactions was the National Firearms Act of 1934 in which they were banned. In the 1960s laws were made that prohibited the mail-order marketing of firearms and sale of assault rifle clones. In the 1980s assault rifle clones (a clone being a semi-auto only version of a military assault rifle) became legal once more as the 1960s measures expired. In 1994 there was the "Assault Rifle ban" which occurred about the time that background checks for all firearms went into effect across the nation.

Today the NYC murder rate is 7.3. This highly suggests that gun control either has no effect on crime, or even helps violent crime increase (since as gun control has gone from none to restrictive the murder rate in NYC has increased more than 600%). I argue that reasonable gun control helps. The background checks we have now are at the appropriate level and any more will result in higher government outlays with zero to negligable effects on the crime rate.

The reason I say that is the 20th Century the spikes in violent crime usually correspond to economic factors such as the Great Depression and prohibition of drugs and alchohol. Conversely, lulls occur when the economy is doing well. Take the 1994 assault rifle ban. Following this ban the violent crime rate dropped. This is lauded as a success by anti-gun people. But is it?

1) There was an economic recovery that was just starting to get going in 1993/1994 which has a more immediate effect on people than the ban.
2) The ban did not ban anything. While the M-16, AR-15 and AK-47 were mentioned by name, the law still allowed for rifles to be imported/manufactured that accepted high cap mags as long as they did not have: pistol grips, bayonets, flash suppresors or grenade launchers (things that have NO observed usage in crime). So what did the Chinese do? Gave the AK-47 a thumbhole stock and called it the MAK-90. In Romania it is known as the SAR-1. So we could still buy AK-47s and AR-15s under the ban. As for the ban on buying high capacity mags...it only applied to new manufacture. Two problems with this: mags are not serially controlled and there is such a huge surplus of them...very few are newly manufactured. The cost of a 30rd AK mag jumped from $6 to $8 under the Clinton "ban".

So the ban wasn't really a ban and there was a major economic recovery. Hmmm...the real world shows that what you're proposing is not where legislators should be focusing their attention.

As for the rest of the world lets go ahead and play with that data as well:
1) The US non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the total murder rate of every European country which means there is something other than guns that is making our culture more violent than other developed countries (ELF?).
2) When you look at murder rates worldwide you see that we do not fall outside the standard deviation for developed countries. This means that while we may lead the developed world in firearms deaths, we are still within the expected range of firearm murders in the developed world...we are not that much of an outlier.

In short your theory that we need more gun control by way of background checks falls apart both theoretically and when applied to the real world data set.

What we need is a focus on things that will lower the crime rate. Not misleadingly obvious feel-good laws that will do nothing.

Also I would like to point out the factors listed by the FBI in their 1997 Uniform Crime Report:

* Population density and degree of urbanization.
* Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
* Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
* Modes of transportation and highway system.
* Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
* Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
* Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
* Climate.
* Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
* Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
* Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
* Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
* Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Guess what's missing? That's right...liberal gun laws (meaning easy obtainment of firearms). Gun laws are NOT the root of the problem. We currently have background checks that keep criminals from getting guns legally. As for mental health, we may be able to do better with that. Let's go back 3-5 years to see if someone spent time in a clinic. Fine. But beyond that, what more do you think is reasonable? School shootings remain rare, and deranged individuals (according to the report mentioned above) going on rampages are not a significant cause of homicides.

So why focus on outliers when people are dying because of ELF, poverty and lack of education?

At 6/10/08 07:47 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 6/10/08 06:47 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/10/08 06:43 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Now for every other country with a gun ban. If it's a systematic pattern, you should have no problem.

yeah thats a real counter argument

Britain is Britain, as I said before. If he wants to prove gun restrictions are harmful, then he's going to have to show charts for every country and prove that the gun ban caused an increase in shooting deaths.

Actually, since you're the one making the active claim (i.e. gun restrictions are effective), and gun restrictions have intrinsic costs (administration, enforcement), it's your job to provide some evidence that they actually work, which is to say, provide evidence that gun crime or gun violence was reduced after the imposition of restrictions on purchase and ownership.

This means you don't compare two different countries at the same time, it means you compare two different times in the same country.

Elfer, that was very intelligent, but like I said, I made this thread to open a conversation, but I'm the only person here arguing for my side. I don't want to argue.

TheMason, I have stopped reading your posts because 99% of them has nothing to do with anything and I have a short attention span. The remaining 1%, however, was very informative.

Maybe I should be more informative- TheMason, links and short summaries. Not long charts and statistics. I don't listen to theories, that's how Communism started. I listen to real-world applications.

At 6/12/08 06:35 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I have stopped reading your posts because 99% of them has nothing to do with anything

Sigh...
You child are so pathetic, you do not belong in this forum.

At 6/12/08 06:38 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Maybe I should be more informative- TheMason, links and short summaries. Not long charts and statistics. I don't listen to theories, that's how Communism started. I listen to real-world applications.

If you don't listen to stats or read statistics...then you're listening to theory NOT real-world applications. Furthermore, all you have been spewing is theory with nothing factual. Yes, the rest of the developed world has a lower murder rate than the US. But is that gun control or other factors?

The simple truth that you do not want to face is that real-world applications just prove you wrong.

Yes, do checks on people who want to defend themselves so the Government can fuck us even more.

At 6/12/08 06:38 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Maybe I should be more informative- TheMason, links and short summaries. Not long charts and statistics. I don't listen to theories, that's how Communism started. I listen to real-world applications.

Ummm, is that your excuse so you don't have to take on Mason's points one-on-one?

I prefer real-world applications to statistics because statistics are highly variable and can prove anything. There are statistics out there to prove everything, even religion. Therefor, the only reasons I like to debate with is how things are now and were back then. TheMason, much of your posts has little to do with what I say, and when have we ever had to use guns to defend ourselves from the government? Also, I think saying that I'm stupid and don't belong here shows more narrow-mindedness than my posts.

I'm neither stupid nor arrogant. Find me some definitive proof that gun obtainment restriction laws do more harm than good, and I will apologize and admit that I was wrong. That's the great thing about being able to be proven wrong- it means that you are actually intelligent and not just strong-headed.

I have yet to see anything in this thread that shows guns restrictions are harmful, only one instance in which a gun ban hurt one country and a bunch of statistics about firearms which have almost nothing to do with world politics.

I'd also like to add that I don't want isolated instances, because, as mentioned, that can prove anything. A Christian can show some statistics about heritage and flood waters and that does not prove anything about Noah's Ark. Show me a country. Or, preferably, a planet.

At 6/12/08 09:05 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I prefer real-world applications to statistics because statistics are highly variable and can prove anything. There are statistics out there to prove everything, even religion. Therefor, the only reasons I like to debate with is how things are now and were back then. TheMason, much of your posts has little to do with what I say, and when have we ever had to use guns to defend ourselves from the government? Also, I think saying that I'm stupid and don't belong here shows more narrow-mindedness than my posts.

First of all, I'm not calling you stupid or saying you do not belong here. I have however called you ignorant on the topic. Now you may be wondering how that is any different from calling you stupid. It is vastly different. Being ignorant simply means you lack knowledge while being stupid means you're incapable of obtaining knowledge. I honestly think that you are just spewing regurgitated propaganda from biased anti-gun sources without having a subject knowledge deep enough to form an informed opinion. This is evidenced from the shallowness of your argument.

Furthermore, if my posts are not dealing with what you're saying enough to your liking...then perhaps you are not conveying your message properly. I have dealt with your argument that we need more background checks. There is no evidence that they would do more to curb violence.

You however, have not articulated why this position is wrong. Why do we need to change the status quo? What needs to be changed about it?

As for your attack on statistics...that is how we measure the real world. In fact you yourself use them when you make your "systematic" appraisal that gun control works in the rest of the world. You may think by knocking out statistics, you knock the legs out from underneath my argument. However, you fail to realize that if stats are invalid then you have no real-world applications (not the correct term BTW) yourself and ALL you're dealing with is theory.

Thus if you're looking at history...then gun control is a failure. After all in 1900 it was legal to buy guns (including automatics) through the mail and the murder rate in NYC was 1.2/100,000. Now it is much more restrictive and the murder rate is 7.3/100,000. There is a similar trend throughout the US in that time period so it is not just one isolated case. However, I do not believe that simplistic theory...but you don't want to deal with the real world.

I'm neither stupid nor arrogant. Find me some definitive proof that gun obtainment restriction laws do more harm than good, and I will apologize and admit that I was wrong. That's the great thing about being able to be proven wrong- it means that you are actually intelligent and not just strong-headed.

I am proving you wrong, time and time again. You just lack the knowledge of this particular subject to know when you've been bested. Have you not noticed how you're the only one articulating your argument?

I have yet to see anything in this thread that shows guns restrictions are harmful, only one instance in which a gun ban hurt one country and a bunch of statistics about firearms which have almost nothing to do with world politics.

Gun restrictions are harmful in that in "gun-free zones" you see the worst crime rates. Studies have been done on school shootings and other rampages and the evidence always to points to the fact that the perp looks for areas where people are unarmed because they know cops are not there to stop/prevent crime but write reports. Therefore if, at least, ex-military and law enforcement could carry at Universities and Colleges...then perhaps massacres will either not happen or stopped before too many people get hurt.

Furthermore, your argument that what I'm saying does not have anything to do with world politics is laughable. My stats are directly relevent to world politics. That you make this claim really does show that you are out of your depth on this argument.