Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 5

5861 posts

Flag Post

I bet the dozens dead would have loved to have a gun at Virginia Tech that day, at least they could have fought back and possibly killed him. Instead, he shot dead dozens of hiding libs.

Or they would have wished to see that a mentally ill person could not obtain a gun.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

forget it, I wasn’t talking about you, this discussion is lost, stA thinks inanimate objects are evil

I never once said that, you are just trying to twist my words to make me look like the bad guy.

 
Flag Post

So you like the idea of a “big brother” making decisions for you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:
Originally posted by finkle:

forget it, I wasn’t talking about you, this discussion is lost, stA thinks inanimate objects are evil

I never once said that, you are just trying to twist my words to make me look like the bad guy.

Ok then, why cannot I have a gun?

 
Flag Post

Ok then, why cannot I have a gun?

You can have one. You just don’t need it in every situation, and there are certain calibers you don’t need.

 
Flag Post

I like the idea of little straw men, all set up in a row :)

 
Flag Post

so what is the current limit on calibers then? or what should it be?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

so what is the current limit on calibers then? or what should it be?

The current limit? There are lots of complicated laws, you have to be more specific with what you mean here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jabor:

I like the idea of little straw men, all set up in a row :)

What about the either/or fallacy being tossed about in this post all the time. Have to love that one.

But anyway, Warmachine you have still not given any shread of proof that Obama is going to try to ban guns. You keep avoiding that question. So I will ask yet again will you please provide proof for your argument, or are you just going to continue to treat rumors as fact.

 
Flag Post

emergency preparedness is just that, for emergencies, the current limit on caliber is 50, what’s annoying is arbitrary limits, as long as one imposes a hard number, people will exploit that number, so back to my point why have numbers at all? killing is killing, most murders with firearms use less than 3 rounds on average, so high capacity magazines are not a factor, assault weapons just look evil, most criminals use cheap guns, not tactical ones and of low-caliber

 
Flag Post

I really don’t even think you know the laws which is kindof my point.

 
Flag Post

Why do you need a gun?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

I really don’t even think you know the laws which is kindof my point.

instead of double posting use the edit button

 
Flag Post

Recreation and preparedness which I’ve said before. The question you didn’t answer was why shouldn’t I have one?

 
Flag Post

people will exploit that number, so back to my point why have numbers at all?

Why have a speed limit in urban areas? I mean, if you limit it to 30 miles an hour, people will exploit that by going exactly 30, so why not just let them go as fast as they want?

 
Flag Post

Recreation

There’s countless of other tools for recreation. Why a weapon?

preparedness

For what? You don’t need a weapon if nobody has one.

The question you didn’t answer was why shouldn’t I have one?

Because the statistics point towards more gun-related deaths in countries with more firearms available to the public. In short, restricting access to guns lowers death rate due to guns in countries.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

I really don’t even think you know the laws which is kindof my point.

A funny statement considering you consistently evade answering me and blood18 when we get into specifics.

 
Flag Post

Weapon isn’t used in the literal sense there. It’s not the weapon we’re talking about.

Not in the example sentence, no. But the definition still applies to a weapon as a tangible object.

Perhaps I made my question unclear, but you clearly know what we’re arguing about.

I was arguing that guns clearly were not created with the singular purpose to kill people. Nothing more.

I took a quick glance through the statistics on gun-related deaths and gun ownership. They’re correlated very well. The less guns people can carry, the less deaths will actually occur with guns.

And these statistics are where?

It won’t end violence. It will reduce gun violence. Which is one of the most deadly kinds of violence.

I don’t think it necessarily will.

You don’t want death and violence to be reduced?

There is just as much reason to believe these can be reduced by allowing people to have guns. Why don’t you want death and violence to be reduced?

Irrelevant, simply because criminals ignore the law is no reason to scrap the law.

When breaking the law harms no one, it is.

Guns make it easier to act on murderous impulses.

Prove it.

Usually the first and last time annoying anti-gun libs see a gun is when someone like Seung-Hui Cho shoots them dead.

Wow. Cause he gave them all a survey to determine their political affiliations before he shot them, right?

Because the statistics point towards more gun-related deaths in countries with more firearms available to the public. In short, restricting access to guns lowers death rate due to guns in countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

 
Flag Post

I don’t think it necessarily will.

You don’t think less of X will relate in less of “X related incidents?” I’m curious as to how that follows.

Guns make it easier to act on murderous impulses.

Prove it.

I think the statement as it stands is a given (you can’t argue that it isn’t easier to kill with a gun than say your bare hands), but ok [PDF].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

An inconvenient truth. Relatively low rates compared to other gun toting societies does not mean there isn’t a problem, just a smaller one.

 
Flag Post

I was arguing that guns clearly were not created with the singular purpose to kill people. Nothing more.

It’s a pointless argument, it’s a matter of historical fact that firearms were designed and made for killing people.

When breaking the law harms no one, it is.

Except that alcohol and drugs and firearms all harm people. And kill people.

Prove it.

Uh… prove that easy access to firearms makes it easier to act on murderous impulses? You actually want to contest that statement as being false?

 
Flag Post

You don’t think less of X will relate in less of “X related incidents?” I’m curious as to how that follows.

Making X illegal won’t necessarily reduce the amount of X owned by criminals inclined to cause X-related incidents. And it is quite reasonable to believe that X can reduce the number of X-related incidents as the would-be criminal is worried about becoming an X-related incident himself.

I think the statement as it stands is a given (you can’t argue that it isn’t easier to kill with a gun than say your bare hands), but ok [PDF].

This study suggests that the handling of guns (not the presence) for 15 minutes (at this point it seems more deliberate than impulsive, no?) increases “aggressive behavior” (as defined by putting hot sauce in someone’s water). I would think the aggression when it deals with the possibility of killing another human being and blatantly illegal acts would be a bit different. I would think something like a knife is more conducive to impulsive murders, because there is no large flash or loud bang to draw attention to yourself.

An inconvenient truth. Relatively low rates compared to other gun toting societies does not mean there isn’t a problem, just a smaller one.

He said statistics point to more guns leading to more gun violence. I wasn’t saying that there wasn’t a problem, but that this isn’t necessarily the case.

It’s a pointless argument, it’s a matter of historical fact that firearms were designed and made for killing people.

But not solely killing people, as I have shown to you.

Except that alcohol and drugs and firearms all harm people. And kill people.

Buying drugs and firearms does not kill or harm people. Killing or harming people while drunk or high does. Shooting a gun at someone does.

Uh… prove that easy access to firearms makes it easier to act on murderous impulses? You actually want to contest that statement as being false?

Yes.

 
Flag Post

Making X illegal won’t necessarily reduce the amount of X owned by criminals

Where will they get it from? I will grant there might be problems for a few years, but without a steady supply they are going to have a problem.

And it is quite reasonable to believe that X can reduce the number of X-related incidents as the would-be criminal is worried about becoming an X-related incident himself.

Not really, since in both situations you have a high threat. Knowing your victims are armed can lead to a higher rate of violent crimes since criminals (who are going to steal shit whether it is carebear land or a gulag) will just take the initiative anyway. At least if you are unarmed they have low incentive to use firearms to begin with; in fact it can be detrimental in such a situation.

I would think the aggression when it deals with the possibility of killing another human being and blatantly illegal acts would be a bit different.

You are looking for a direct correlation, which can’t really be tested. It simply bears out the hypothesis, which is all it needs to do anyway. Aggression was raised by the presence of a weapon, and plenty of other studies have pretty well established this.

However it was a bit off topic; as I said the way he wrote it really can’t be argued.

I would think something like a knife is more conducive to impulsive murders, because there is no large flash or loud bang to draw attention to yourself.

I’m not certain how consequences like a loud bang matter for impulsive acts. An impulsive act is by definition one done without regard to consequences.

But not solely killing people, as I have shown to you.

Irrelevant. Nuclear technology is not solely for killing people, but its potential use is important enough that it is carefully regulated. The same for any weapon.

 
Flag Post

Well, guns give regular citizens a power that it comparable to even military personnel. See when the Bill of Rights was written, America was frequent to being invaded and fighting in their own lands, at which point the regular citizens might need to defend themselves, so the 2nd amendment was written. I wish it was so easy to outlaw guns, but we have to accept the fact that if it does get outlawed only criminals will have them.

 
Flag Post

we have to accept the fact that if it does get outlawed only criminals will have them.

Because all law enforcement will disappear overnight.

 
Flag Post

we have to accept the fact that if it does get outlawed only criminals will have them.

By definition, yes.