At 4/20/11 04:32 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Hmmm. So, for someone who is supposedly a solid B student and is a PoliSci major, you do understand my humor at you saying "Screw your arguments! I am a good person!" right?

First how, I am French speaking first, and barely ever gets to discuss such matters in English. So I really have a lot more difficulties expressing my thoughts on this

Second of, this is the internet, it's a lot more harder to debater over the internet, and I really wasn't going to read the whole thread just to tell you my point of view.

Third of, you seem to be one of these guys who think you can argue with statistics. It's not the case, especially when studying human being. You talk about guns... you are talking about shooting people. One thing that your statistics will ever fail to grasp, are emotions, stress, fear, awareness, personnal judgement. You seem to believe that you can calculate human beings, I'm sorry, but there is a lot more to human beings than numbers.

My main argument will stay the same. I was net assaulted with a weapon in my life, nor was any of my family members or friends. I never felt that I could have used a gun to defend myself, ever. And having a weapon acts like a psychological influence to use it. If you feel threatened, no matter how wrong your judgement can be, you will use the weapon, possibly killing or injuring the other person badly.

You FEEL? Oh please. "Ignore all that evidence stuff! HeavenDuff FEELS something ladies and gentlemen! Don't use an objective standard of proof or anything...pay attention to the sensitive man!"

One thing you'd know if you ever did any Social studies... you would know that most of your "objective proofs" are not worth jackshit. I've recently studied how surveys and elections fail to really collect reality on a sheet of paper.

I'm trying to use examples. Get to analyze real life situations, because your statistics, will always fail to grasp the HUMAN FACTOR.

If you think that guns can save lives, you have to wonder who's most likely going to get a gun if they are made legal for the most part, and that the registration is not required anymore.

Criminals will get these a lot easier, and will be the most inclined to getting one. So what if a criminal tries to assault another individual. With a firearm, he can easily shoot him in the back... But let's ignore that bit, ok? If both the victim and the assailant are facing each others with a firearm in their hands. Who will shoot first? Who will most likely hit target first? Who will most possibly panic and fail to hit target?

And what is the risk of over-react over a minor threat? If there is no real risk involved, someone might make a mistake by pulling the trigger.

And here's where I DO call you an idiot. People die every day of needless, senseless accidents. If we banned everything that causes accidental death we wouldn't have: toys, painted walls, pools, cars, knives, heavy furniture, darts, tall buildings, or...well, pretty much anything.

See, that's where you are FUCKING STUPID (I'm going to do the same as you do). According to your statistics, these accidents happen very often, even if it's only 1 time on 20, at the end of the year, that's still more then one death. PLUS, the knives and toys first use are not to kill people. While the gun's sole purpose is to badly injure someone or kill him.

If there was any weapon we should allow people to carry, it should be pistols. 9mm bullets are not made to kill, but rather used to injury and eliminate a threat. A shotgun, is the silliest weapon you can allow people to use, especially for self-defense... Spraying someone with a shotgun to "defend yourself" at your home, is just ridiculous.

The argument that something causes accidental deaths, and therefore should be banned...any evidence to the contrary be damned, is inherently stupid. There is simply nothing that cannot be dangerous in the right context.

That's not what I said.

Admittedly, this is parody, but it's about as good a reason to ban toothpaste as your crusade against guns.

I FEEL that there most be a lot more people who die, killed by a firearm, than people dying from the use of toothpaste.

Hmmm, really? Because your debate style isn't even on the pyramid. "Rejects evidence in favor of feeling, makes argument about them, posts useless picture in lieu of debate" aren't listed. Ad hominim is definitely there, as is attacking the tone of the argument, but not the other three. Hmmm.

Show me your statistics again, and we'll see how flawed they are. Objective... my ass.

You're not even good enough to make the pyramid of bad arguments? Poor kid, you really are dumb. (Yes, fool, that is ad hominim, but considering I consistently hit the top level, I feel I'm allowed to make ad hominims on occasion.)

Hahahahahahaha!

The obvious fact that you cannot have a debate without getting in a confrontation, just prooves how much of a dick you are. Why make threads, if you are going to call dicks, anyone who disagree with you?

You won't win that useless intimidation game. You have not A SINGLE TIME, prooven that my points were invalid. NOT A SINGLE TIME. Every chance you got, you just threw an insult, making no mention of my arguments.

At 4/20/11 06:48 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: First how, I am French speaking first, and barely ever gets to discuss such matters in English. So I really have a lot more difficulties expressing my thoughts on this

I'm sorry. Should I care? Your background doesn't interest me. I don't care who you are. I am here to debate. Your ideas suck, and when you are told that, you basically tell people to go fuck themselves. That you are French really doesn't change anything for me.

Second of, this is the internet, it's a lot more harder to debater over the internet, and I really wasn't going to read the whole thread just to tell you my point of view.

No one asked you to. However, you don't know what you are talking about. Even you seemed to realize that for a moment. When I agreed, you ignored facts and made it about you.

Third of, you seem to be one of these guys who think you can argue with statistics. It's not the case, especially when studying human being. You talk about guns... you are talking about shooting people. One thing that your statistics will ever fail to grasp, are emotions, stress, fear, awareness, personnal judgement. You seem to believe that you can calculate human beings, I'm sorry, but there is a lot more to human beings than numbers.

I'm sorry, but if you think statistics DON'T matter, you're an imbecile. Do guns save more lives than they take? Yes. Do they save A LOT more? Yup. Does that matter to the debate? More than anything else. Unlike you, I've had a gun pulled on me, I've been shot. I understand what that it like. And buddy, it sucks. But I'll be the first to tell you that my first hand knowledge doesn't mean anything. The numbers show that guns save lives.

If you are unwilling to look at statistics and try and find a meaning....I don't believe you are a PoliSci major. Unless France has low standards.

One thing you'd know if you ever did any Social studies... you would know that most of your "objective proofs" are not worth jackshit. I've recently studied how surveys and elections fail to really collect reality on a sheet of paper.

Huh? More nonsense?

I'm trying to use examples. Get to analyze real life situations, because your statistics, will always fail to grasp the HUMAN FACTOR.

There is no human factor. Guns save lives. Sometimes guns take lives. Sometimes the lives taken by guns save other lives. The facts matter. Not the emotion behind them.

If you think that guns can save lives, you have to wonder who's most likely going to get a gun if they are made legal for the most part, and that the registration is not required anymore.

100% of those who get guns hat way will be law abiding citizens. Because criminals still have guns in England...where guns are illegal. That was easy.

I'm sorry. I feel little inclination to continue a "fact free debate" with a dude who is demanding I abandon logic and intelligence and instead accept his feelings as proper argument. I'm done with you, sorry.

At 4/20/11 10:23 AM, morefngdbs wrote: But in the highest years, less than 30,000 died by use of guns B U T 48% of those were suicide ! You think the suicidal people won't kill themselves unless they have a gun ????

Yes. Less people would commit suicide if they didn't have a gun. See, people kill themselves mostly on an impulsion. During an emotionnal breakdown, you wish you could kill yourself, but it usually goes down really fast.

My girlfriend's sister tried killing herself by inhaling gaz... She failed, because she started puking and couldn't keep on going...

She's a depressed person. She's not unhappy, she does want to live, but she could have died, if she had a firearm anywhere near to commit suicide. So no, you cannot just ignore deaths by suicide to make your statistics better. 30000 deaths, is still quite a fucking lot.

Anyway, I've read that part in your link, where they talk about Sweden. And see... that's another FATAL FLAW to statistics: "(Sweden has higher suicide rate than US, but guns hardly used there for that...)"

This quotation just prooves how statistics cannot understand the human factor. Of course, there is a correlation between the numbers. But are these proofs? No they aren't. Because collecting these numbers, they failed to understand that the social situation in Sweden, may favor suicide in Sweden, more than it does in the United States, REGARDLESS of what are the policies for gun ownership in both countries.

I've got no problem with responsible gun ownership. I see the fact that PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE WITH GUNS.
BUT
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE WITH A LOT MORE THAN GUNS...so why no concentrate on the big killers ?
Why don't you answer that ?

Most people who use a firearm are not BIG KILLERS or insane people.

I already know why, those who are slowly eroding the rights of the American people down to nothing are actively promoting the removal of guns from the hands of citizens , just like Hitler did before he took over the country, just as many other nations Governments do to keep themselves in power & their citizens powerless .

The argument of "self-defense against the government" is plain wrong. Especially considering that the United States army could easily wipe off any kind of resistance, even if you guys were all equipped with assault rifles and shotguns.

You are simply a blind fool following the lead of those who have pulled the wool over your eyes & you have the out right BALLS to SAY
"ONE ACCIDENTAL DEATH IS TOO MANY....well what about 40,000 auto deaths is that acceptable then ?
It's OK because ...THANK GOD.... they weren't shot !

A car's first use is to transport people.
A weapon's first use is to kill people.

And if you want to make silly statistics, then let's do it together. How many people drives a car everyday and for how much time? Now compare the number you got, with the use of a firearm. There is a WHOLE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT more people driving cars, EVERYDAY than there is people firing a gun.

Your statistics are useless, because they fail to UNDERSTAND what is the use of a CAR and what is the use of a GUN.

BILLIONS OF PEOPLE everyday will drive cars. Accidents are prone to happen, but when you shoot someone with a weapon, it's not an accident, or rarely.

At 4/20/11 06:59 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Useless junk.

Shut the fuck up... your whole post is a shitload of nonsense and insults. Just prooving how much of a cuntface you are. Now go die, and I really hope it's a fucking firearm that kills you...

"There is no human factor"

What a fucking MORON!

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yes. Less people would commit suicide if they didn't have a gun.

i guess thats why the Canadian suicide rate is higher than the US.

Since it's every human's right to self defense....

... free pistols for everyone!

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: This quotation just prooves how statistics cannot understand the human factor. Of course, there is a correlation between the numbers. But are these proofs? No they aren't. Because collecting these numbers, they failed to understand that the social situation in Sweden, may favor suicide in Sweden, more than it does in the United States, REGARDLESS of what are the policies for gun ownership in both countries.

ah, so you've already addressed how statistics prove nothing, well i say its time for more statistics!
have yourself a look at other countries ranked higher the US, i.e. Japan, and you can see a delightful example of how guns do not magically influence or encourage suicide; no guns means people find other ways.
the replacement of guns by other methods is well documented (i had seen another one about Canadian suicide methods and how we more than made up for our lack of guns but i don't remember where i found it).
you mentioned yourself the complexity of establishing causal relations between events yet you still seem to think that banning guns is the best way to prevent suicide. kudos.

At 4/20/11 07:16 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yes. Less people would commit suicide if they didn't have a gun.

i guess thats why the Canadian suicide rate is higher than the US.

If you fail to grasp all the social factors, than rates don't mean shit.

At 4/20/11 07:30 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

ah, so you've already addressed how statistics prove nothing, well i say its time for more statistics!
have yourself a look at other countries ranked higher the US, i.e. Japan, and you can see a delightful example of how guns do not magically influence or encourage suicide; no guns means people find other ways.

They do, of course they do. But the easiest way out is to pull the trigger.

the replacement of guns by other methods is well documented (i had seen another one about Canadian suicide methods and how we more than made up for our lack of guns but i don't remember where i found it).

I'd like to see this. I'm here to debate and hear about other people's arguments. I'm really interrested in this, seriously.

you mentioned yourself the complexity of establishing causal relations between events yet you still seem to think that banning guns is the best way to prevent suicide. kudos.

You read me wrong. I never said that. I said having a gun, makes it easier to kill yourself. Slashing your own wrists is way harder, from a psychological perspective, it's a lot different. Jumping off a bridge... well... you need to have a bridge... And by the time someone would walk up the bridge and jump, he could have shit himself in the head, countless times.

A lot of suicides are not planned... they are linked to emotionnal breakdowns. By them time you walk to the bridge or make yourself a slipknot... you will have calmed down...

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: A car's first use is to transport people.
A weapon's first use is to kill people.

I believe you are wrong & in ONE instance I can prove it.
Cars are first of all used each & every day to commit crime. Every police force in the US & CANADA have a traffic division...not to keep the roads traffic flowing, although they do fuck that up regularily, they are there becaue of motor vehicle infractions AKA breaking the law happen constantly from transporting criminals to being used to commit crime
Perfect reason following your logic to ban most of them, or at least ban any known criminal from owning or operating one right ?

I myself am a gun owner, I have owned multiple guns at one time, I have been owning & using guns for over 25 years.
I have never killed anyone.
I have never shot at or attempted to shoot anyone. EVER.
I have belonged to & attended gun ranges. I have been a target shooter when I was younger & I have been a hunter from the time I was a 16 year old until today. If in all that time using a gun was for one purpose & one purpose only...surely I would have at least pointed the damn thing at one person at least !
Yet I haven't. My Grandfather hunted right up into his seventies & he never shot
anyone, not even one after more than 50 years owning & using a ""BOOM BOOOM BOOOM BOOM"" , nonregisted rifle & or his shotgun & when he was a young man he owned a handgun.
Yet he never committed a crime either.
Not even one warning shot !
So what was your point again....I've forgotten it ?

At 4/20/11 09:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: A car's first use is to transport people.
A weapon's first use is to kill people.

I believe you are wrong & in ONE instance I can prove it.

I think you are splitting hairs here. Duff is right. Cars number one intended use is for peaceful and harmless driving. the fact that it can be used others, or that the privilege may be abused does not change that. A gun's number one purpose is to shoot. It is to cause harm toward what it is aimed at. The fact that it is often used safely and not toward other humans does not change that.

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

At 4/20/11 07:11 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 4/20/11 06:59 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Useless junk.

Shut the fuck up... your whole post is a shitload of nonsense and insults. Just prooving how much of a cuntface you are. Now go die, and I really hope it's a fucking firearm that kills you...

"There is no human factor"

What a fucking MORON!

That would be what on your picture again? Oh Name Calling.

There is no factual basis to your debate. You're a simple minded idiot who is unable to debate facts, so he insults without some factual basis and demands that preference be given to him because he is unable to converse well in English.

Piss off simpleton.

At 4/20/11 10:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you are splitting hairs here. Duff is right. Cars number one intended use is for peaceful and harmless driving. the fact that it can be used others, or that the privilege may be abused does not change that. A gun's number one purpose is to shoot. It is to cause harm toward what it is aimed at. The fact that it is often used safely and not toward other humans does not change that.

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

But to put that simply too...

How many times do police pull out their guns to simply force compliance? How often do people use guns for self defense without firing a shot?

If those numbers are higher than the number of people who use them to injure others (and they are) then the point is wrong. Guns can work as a deterrent. Moreover, is the purpose of guns specifically to harm other humans? Or do the guns kill animals?

Seems a tad more gray than we make it out to be.

At 4/21/11 02:30 AM, WolvenBear wrote: There is no factual basis to your debate. You're a simple minded idiot who is unable to debate facts, so he insults without some factual basis and demands that preference be given to him because he is unable to converse well in English.

Claiming that statistics are fact, is pretty much third grade level. You have no fucking braincells cause you waste your time sniffing gun powder. I don't care if I'm using insults now. I really don't care, cause you are a fucking moron who can analyse statistics and realise how dumb he sounds, claiming that he knows about "objective facts". Do that in any fucking University project and they will give you an F, fucking dumbshit.

I'm using examples, real life situations and I try to take care of important factors so we can get to a better understanding of the situation. But you seem to believe that "human emotions" and socialization are not to be considered when debating about the use of firearms. You are stupid, just plain fucking stupid. It saddens me to read such pathetic pseudo-intellectual posts.

At 4/21/11 03:11 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Claiming that statistics are fact, is pretty much third grade level.

Um, no. Claiming statistics are fact is solid debate. As such it is the hallmark of intelligent argument. Dismissing debate for feelings is third grade. Next?

You have no fucking braincells cause you waste your time sniffing gun powder. I don't care if I'm using insults now. I really don't care, cause you are a fucking moron who can analyse statistics and realise how dumb he sounds, claiming that he knows about "objective facts". Do that in any fucking University project and they will give you an F, fucking dumbshit.

Um, again, no. If you use statistics in a university project to bolster your case, you get an A. (I'd know, being a solid A student in college. Perhaps you'd get a better grade if you tried using facts?)

Besides, what moron claims that "reading statistics makes someone dumb"? Good God, you're an idiot.

I'm using examples, real life situations and I try to take care of important factors so we can get to a better understanding of the situation. But you seem to believe that "human emotions" and socialization are not to be considered when debating about the use of firearms. You are stupid, just plain fucking stupid. It saddens me to read such pathetic pseudo-intellectual posts.

No, you try to avoid debate and argue in emotional terms because you're a braindead asshole who's first, last and only line of defense is to call others names. While I have piled on the facts you have called me every name under the sun. Go home junior. You're dealing with your intellectual superior and you are looking like a stupid child in the process.

At 4/20/11 07:43 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: They do, of course they do. But the easiest way out is to pull the trigger.

not really, guns miss. now falling from height, that my friend, doesn't miss.

and its one of Japan's favorites, blowing gun use out of the water.

At 4/20/11 07:43 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: A lot of suicides are not planned... they are linked to emotionnal breakdowns. By them time you walk to the bridge or make yourself a slipknot... you will have calmed down...

by the way, i'm not bothering with more sources until you start doing the same. anecdotes ain't fact.

At 4/21/11 02:33 AM, WolvenBear wrote: If those numbers are higher than the number of people who use them to injure others (and they are) then the point is wrong. Guns can work as a deterrent. Moreover, is the purpose of guns specifically to harm other humans? Or do the guns kill animals?

I never said guns were specifically made to harm. Guns were made to shoot a projectile into a target and to cause harm to that target. That is their purpose, plain and simple. The reason they can be used as deterrence is because their purpose is to cause harm.

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

At 4/21/11 04:36 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/21/11 03:11 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Claiming that statistics are fact, is pretty much third grade level.

Um, no. Claiming statistics are fact is solid debate. As such it is the hallmark of intelligent argument. Dismissing debate for feelings is third grade. Next?

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

Um, again, no. If you use statistics in a university project to bolster your case, you get an A. (I'd know, being a solid A student in college. Perhaps you'd get a better grade if you tried using facts?)

Besides, what moron claims that "reading statistics makes someone dumb"? Good God, you're an idiot.

...

I'm using examples, real life situations and I try to take care of important factors so we can get to a better understanding of the situation. But you seem to believe that "human emotions" and socialization are not to be considered when debating about the use of firearms. You are stupid, just plain fucking stupid. It saddens me to read such pathetic pseudo-intellectual posts.

No, you try to avoid debate and argue in emotional terms because you're a braindead asshole who's first, last and only line of defense is to call others names. While I have piled on the facts you have called me every name under the sun. Go home junior. You're dealing with your intellectual superior and you are looking like a stupid child in the process.

...

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

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

And if you don't go back to actually TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT, than I will just disregard your posts, cause this pathetic confrontation is useless.

At 4/21/11 09:54 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Removing the possibility of the threat of harm by disarming the population at large would be a detriment, following that line.

Really? I would love someone to drop down some statistics on how many crimes are averted by guns every year.

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

Does that stat count?

That was a situation, not a stat. How many crimes are stopped becuase of guns? How many crimes are escalated because of the victim carrying a gun?

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

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

that just saved me a whole bunch of schooling.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, if we wish to be real...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously.

What was the response?

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

You are not stating facts. You take stupid statistics,

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

So, you didn't read my post...but I stated no facts.

Pardon me if I don't take that criticism with anything but mockery. Idiot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or we can look at England.

Banning guns removes the chance of gun crime, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get back on topic, moron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now get back on topic.

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

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

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

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

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

Lol

At 4/23/11 06:00 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: At 4/23/11 05:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: :

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

Says you, dumb ass.

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

well, this has gone downhill fast.

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

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

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

That's the key...

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

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

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

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