The only gun control needed.

[Rustic]

 

[Dr Grump]

So... you don't like the fact that I proved your argument unsound, just like I said I would?
Your problem, not mine.

You haven't proved anything.

 

[Dr Grump]

It doesn't matter how many times you present this post hoc argument - it is still based on a fallacy, and therefore unsound.

Ah - the ad hom, an appeal to emotion reserved for those who fully understand they have nothing of value to say.

So far, you have yet to post one, just one, sound position.

Why is it a fallacy? You're the one making the claim, it's yours to prove.

Ad-hom? You call the FACT that a plethora of gun nuts on this very board have said over and over again they want their pea-shooters because they don't trust your govt and/or to protect their family an ad-hom? I suggest you look up the meaning of the term...

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't know any gun owner that has a safe for their gun. A simple gun lock will keep kids from hurting themselves with a firearm if they happen to take it.

Gun collectors may be a different thing, but I'm sure most would keep a pistol by their bed or close to it in the event of an emergency.

I have no children and have a loaded gun in the headboard of my bed and one on my dresser. I never even touched a real gun until I came home one day and found my apartment had been broken into. I knew who did it too, and they were very dangerous people.

The reason we are safe in our homes is because there is a very good possibility that the home owner does have a firearm whether he or she really has one or not. If you don't believe me, then get a huge sign made for your front porch that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME and let me know how that works out for you.

And while you're fiddling around undoing the lock while the intruder is pointing his pea-shooter at you?

And we are safe in our homes yet most of us don't have guns...

 

[Dr Grump]

There are already laws on the books that make it a crime just like there are with those who illegally have or use a gun.

Totally agree, there are probably enough laws on the books.
However my main plank (and there are others, too, but this is the main one) is that certain types of guns should be banned.

The main problem with this kind of debate is you get the likes of M14 and Rabbi who think in sound bites. For example, this is what I say:

"Certain types of guns need to be banned and people should be licensed for firearms."

What they hear:

"Grump wants to take all our guns and leave us unarmed."

Can any honest person mix up those two sentences? Really?

 

[Dr Grump]

You seem to be obsessed with mass murders in the US. We don't lose most of our people to mass murders. They are usually individual murders involving two bad guys.

Because mass shootings are the ones that are giving people the shits. Most people can negate their interaction with bad guys and situations. ie - avoid bad neighbourhoods, don't hang out with your local drug dealer, don't join a gang.

Now, mass shootings? They're random and anyone can be a victim. And the point is they appear to becoming more frequent. The Texas University shooting in the 1960s, the McDonalds one in California in the 1980s and even Columbine were like "Holy Shit" moments. We remember them, where they were. These days, with the exception of Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech, I cant' even remember where the others have been there have been so many. The main reason I remember those three is because with Sandy Hook it was the ages of most victims, with Virginia Tech the shear number of dead, while Aurora it is a mixture of how the offender was dressed and the huge number of victims (not all who died). As for the rest they just run into one another. To a lot of gun nuts on this board it's okay, because 'statistically' it's not a lot of people dying. Really? They have become so used to it, so desensitised, that people are just a number.

The kinds of shootings i see in the US I expect to see in Mexico, or Brazil, or Sierra Leone, even Russia. Not the US. And the gun lobby is so vitriolic towards those who even suggest minor changes. It's pathetic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are already laws on the books that make it a crime just like there are with those who illegally have or use a gun.

Totally agree, there are probably enough laws on the books.
However my main plank (and there are others, too, but this is the main one) is that certain types of guns should be banned.

The main problem with this kind of debate is you get the likes of M14 and Rabbi who think in sound bites. For example, this is what I say:

"Certain types of guns need to be banned and people should be licensed for firearms."

What they hear:

"Grump wants to take all our guns and leave us unarmed."

Can any honest person mix up those two sentences? Really?

Well........ when we tell you how ineffective these new laws would be, you hear nothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know any gun owner that has a safe for their gun. A simple gun lock will keep kids from hurting themselves with a firearm if they happen to take it.

Gun collectors may be a different thing, but I'm sure most would keep a pistol by their bed or close to it in the event of an emergency.

I have no children and have a loaded gun in the headboard of my bed and one on my dresser. I never even touched a real gun until I came home one day and found my apartment had been broken into. I knew who did it too, and they were very dangerous people.

The reason we are safe in our homes is because there is a very good possibility that the home owner does have a firearm whether he or she really has one or not. If you don't believe me, then get a huge sign made for your front porch that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME and let me know how that works out for you.

And while you're fiddling around undoing the lock while the intruder is pointing his pea-shooter at you?

And we are safe in our homes yet most of us don't have guns...

And the criminal is 100% sure of this?????

 

[Dr Grump]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

 

[Dr Grump]

Well........ when we tell you how ineffective these new laws would be, you hear nothing.

That's because you're a cynic. "Oh, the country is awash with firearms, it would never work." You're right, it wouldn't....initially. Give it time, and it would.

And you guys (well, Rabbi and M14 really) think there is no correlation between there being no mass shootings in Aussie since the buy back in 1997. So there were approximately a dozen random mass shootings (as opposed to domestic-related incidents) in the 10 years before the Port Arthur massacre (where an AR15 was used), and in the 20 years since the buy-back there have been none. This is coincidence? Luck? Or, maybe, just maybe, the strict gun controls are working...

 

[Dr Grump]

And the criminal is 100% sure of this?????

Probably. The point is your argument seems to be "we have tonnes of guns so crims don't know who is armed and who isnt so they leave us alone". I say "we are pretty much an unarmed society and they leave us alone too".

You're being armed to the teeth doesn't appear to make your society any more safer than ours where we have fuck-all guns...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know any gun owner that has a safe for their gun.

I have a safe for all of the guns I keep in a safe.
The guns I keep for protection are not in the safe as I'd have to run down to the basement to get them, should I need them.
Well, and then there's the one rifle that does not fit in the safe...

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you guys (well, Rabbi and M14 really) think there is no correlation between there being no mass shootings in Aussie since the buy back in 1997.

This is a lie.
Correlation? Sure.
Causation? Post hoc fallacy.
It doesn't matter how many times you argue a post hoc fallacy, it is still unsound.

Please feel free to continue to prove that you cannot present a sound position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... you don't like the fact that I proved your argument unsound, just like I said I would?
Your problem, not mine.

You haven't proved anything.

And now, you're simply lying to yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is it a fallacy? You're the one making the claim, it's yours to prove.

You don't know what a post hoc fallacy is?

Allow me to either alleviate you of your ignorance or illustrate your dishonesty.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ad-hom?

Yep.
Proof that you fully understand you have nothing of value to say.

 

[Rustic]

Seven plus years later, a country divided more than ever.
Black on black crime in urban areas of the country is at crazy levels, Chicago comes to mind.

The answer is not in control, Barry and his puppet masters know this to be true. Although his supports obviously don't realize this, just as Barrys puppet masters see fit.

These little EO's of Barrys are ridiculously stupid, they are like busy work. That being they have no teeth therefore no meaning.

Hope and change?? My ass
Lol

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well........ when we tell you how ineffective these new laws would be, you hear nothing.

That's because you're a cynic. "Oh, the country is awash with firearms, it would never work." You're right, it wouldn't....initially. Give it time, and it would.

And you guys (well, Rabbi and M14 really) think there is no correlation between there being no mass shootings in Aussie since the buy back in 1997. So there were approximately a dozen random mass shootings (as opposed to domestic-related incidents) in the 10 years before the Port Arthur massacre (where an AR15 was used), and in the 20 years since the buy-back there have been none. This is coincidence? Luck? Or, maybe, just maybe, the strict gun controls are working...

They must not be working too well because they haven't changed much at least in Australia. They had just as much gun crime after gun confiscation as before. And again you are focused on mass shootings which take much less casualties and lives than individual murders:

List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why is it a fallacy? You're the one making the claim, it's yours to prove.

You don't know what a post hoc fallacy is?

Allow me to either alleviate you of your ignorance or illustrate your dishonesty.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ad-hom?

Yep.
Proof that you fully understand you have nothing of value to say.

I disagree that it is post hoc..

And you obviously have no idea what a ad hom is if you are using in the context of the post you are referring to. Being totally serious - you have no idea.

 

[Dr Grump]

They must not be working too well because they haven't changed much at least in Australia. They had just as much gun crime after gun confiscation as before. And again you are focused on mass shootings which take much less casualties and lives than individual murders:

List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of those deaths have been random mass murderers. Two of them were arson. One of them was an arsonist who liked fires, but didn't mean to kill people. You think the Sandy Hook guy accidentally shot all those young kids? I stand by my statement that there have been no random mass killings since Port Arthur.