There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[Nosmo King]

What greater catastrophe is there than when the state takes all the guns and massacres innocents in the name of justice? It appears that this is where we're headed. One day, when you least suspect it, the catastrophe will be borne of liberal ignorance, not conservatives with guns.

Let's juxtapose reality with your sordid fantasy and ask the parents of Newtown, Connecticut.

Let's juxtapose your faux outrage with your desire to turn the death of 26 children into politics. Spare me.

Your fantasy about massgunconfiscation and killing at the handof government isn't political? Jayzus! You Conservatives will cling to the thinnest rhetorical reeds just to avoid the obvious!

 

[Skull Pilot]

False equivalency. The gun is only designed to kill or maim.

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

You swung and missed., not an analogy at all.

So you have guns just to shoot at paper targets? LOL

As a gun owner I do not get people who are obsessed with guns. Could that be why the majority of gun owners aren't members of the gun lobby's arm , the NRA.

All I have ever used a gun for is skeet and target shooting. So I guess I am misusing my guns as far as you're concerned.

I am not obsessed with guns in fact most people i know have no idea that I own any guns or that I have a carry permit.

Guns are merely tools to be used no different from a saw, a hammer or a drill.

I do not blame a tool for the folly of the person using it.

And BTW I never have been and never will be a member of the NRA.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws - The Week

Look, we've collectively decided, as a country, that the occasional massacre is okay with us. It's the price we're willing to pay for our precious Second Amendment freedoms. We're content to forfeit the lives of a few dozen schoolkids a year as long as we get to keep our guns. The people have spoken, in a cheering civics-class example of democracy in action.

It's hard to imagine what ghastly catastrophe could possibly change America's minds about guns if the little bloody bookbags of Newtown did not. After that atrocity, it seemed as if we would finally enact some obvious, long-overdue half-measures. But perfectly reasonable, moderate legislation expanding background checks and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was summarily killed in the Senate for no reason other than that a sufficient number of United States senators are owned by the NRA. It made our official position as a nation nakedly explicit: we don't care about any number of murdered children, no matter how many, or how young. We want our guns.

the catastrophe already happened that is why you are seeing a push back

on the progressive anti gun laws

rw's committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question." He is assuming the truth of his own position that gun laws reduce gun violence. He has to assume the truth of his own position since his position that reducing the rights of legal gun owners will reduce crime is so stupid. It's not defendable. So you has to assume it's true.

Look at the gun laws in Europe, Canada or Japan

They have murder rates one third of ours?..seems defendable

 

[WinterBorn]

the catastrophe already happened that is why you are seeing a push back

on the progressive anti gun laws

rw's committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question." He is assuming the truth of his own position that gun laws reduce gun violence. He has to assume the truth of his own position since his position that reducing the rights of legal gun owners will reduce crime is so stupid. It's not defendable. So you has to assume it's true.

Look at the gun laws in Europe, Canada or Japan

They have murder rates one third of ours?..seems defendable

And compare the number of non-gun related murders to the same things in those countries. They have half as many. Look at assaults and compare them to those countries, and you'll see we have twice as many, if not more.

We are a violent culture. That is not determined by the tools used.

 

[Paperman299]

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

Guns are designed to shoot a projectile.

As I said before, the original invention of firearms was for warfare. But the uses for modern firearms are many. The gun itself does not select the target or fire the bullet.

Look, I agree that horrific massacres are only a tiny blip in overall gun murders, and that a ban on assault rifles would be trading away a freedom from citizens for virtually no change in overall gun deaths. There are more effective solutions than gun bans. But this coy line about guns being "just a tool" is silly. Like a hammer or a bat, a gun has an obvious useful purpose.

A hammer is made to swing at a target, but that target is obviously a nail. It can be used other ways, but if nails were different, the design of hammers would be different. If there were no nails, there'd be no hammers.

Same with a baseball bat. If baseballs were different, the design of baseball bats would be different.

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things. I'm not trying to be an asshole, everyone I've quoted above has made good points throughout this thread. But let's not pretend that the tools we make specifically for killing are actually completely neutral toward that end.

 

[FA_Q2]

the catastrophe already happened that is why you are seeing a push back

on the progressive anti gun laws

rw's committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question." He is assuming the truth of his own position that gun laws reduce gun violence. He has to assume the truth of his own position since his position that reducing the rights of legal gun owners will reduce crime is so stupid. It's not defendable. So you has to assume it's true.

Look at the gun laws in Europe, Canada or Japan

They have murder rates one third of ours?..seems defendable

Those figures have nothing to do with gun control and you are well aware of it. I have challenged you on these same assertions before as well as many other gun control advocates here and no one has presented any actual hard data to back up the asinine assertions that gun control does anything whatsoever.

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[Spoonman]

Go for it

Explain to the nice people why our number one cause of murder shouldn't be our top priority

Guns don't cause anything. Guns are inanimate tools.

People are the number one cause of murder.

Guns don't kill people.....people with guns kill people

We can't ban people so what is left?

banning libs. all the problems go away

 

[Spoonman]

If the gun is benign and the person operating it is the problem, why the opposition to universal back ground checks? Each and every gun sale, swap, trade or bequest should be subject to a back ground check.

Opposition to them is tantamount to an endorsement of the claims in the OP. No catastrophe is ghastly enough.

Some Conservatives have tried to rationalize that every murder is the equivalent of a gun murder. Baseball bats, knives, even automobiles. But they refuse to recognize that these other implements do not wreck mass havoc. The difference between a shooting and a mass shooting is the tool used. But the gun lovers will equivocate, rationalize, squirm and side step the fact that a mad man with a semi-automatic weapon fitted with high capacity ammunition magazines poses a greater threat than a mad man with a Louisville Slugger or a blade.

California has the background checks in place they are pushing. this latest guy passed 3 of them, while undergoing psychiatric evaluation, while being investigated by the police.

 

[kaz]

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things.

Only you sick, violent criminals and liberals cannot conceive of guns being used for anything but killing.

Space invaders, darts, humans love shooting at targets. No one is imagining killing anyone when they shoot at clay pigeons or skeet. It's fun.

And criminals have guns and other weapons. People who carry guns for defense are not imagining "injuring and killing living things." Criminals are doing that, and you are doing that. Removing guns from the victims does nothing to unarm the criminals they want defense from.

 

[Spoonman]

When will we ever reform our knife and baseball bat laws? How many people must be slashed and bashed before we wake up and ban knives and bats? Its a national embarrassment.

False equivalency. The gun is only designed to kill or maim.

only .00003 guns in the USA ever kill. if their only design is to kill and maim they really are pretty inefficient aren't they? Why don't u gun grabbers come up with some new arguments and retires this pointless bullshit

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's juxtapose reality with your sordid fantasy and ask the parents of Newtown, Connecticut.

Let's juxtapose your faux outrage with your desire to turn the death of 26 children into politics. Spare me.

Your fantasy about massgunconfiscation and killing at the handof government isn't political? Jayzus! You Conservatives will cling to the thinnest rhetorical reeds just to avoid the obvious!

Isn't that what you're doing?

 

[Spoonman]

False equivalency. The gun is only designed to kill or maim.

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

You swung and missed., not an analogy at all.

So you have guns just to shoot at paper targets? LOL

As a gun owner I do not get people who are obsessed with guns. Could that be why the majority of gun owners aren't members of the gun lobby's arm , the NRA.

You own a gun?

So do you shoot and kill with it or did you just blow your entire argument you've been spewing for the last dozen posts

 

[kaz]

If the gun is benign and the person operating it is the problem, why the opposition to universal back ground checks? Each and every gun sale, swap, trade or bequest should be subject to a back ground check.

Opposition to them is tantamount to an endorsement of the claims in the OP. No catastrophe is ghastly enough.

Some Conservatives have tried to rationalize that every murder is the equivalent of a gun murder. Baseball bats, knives, even automobiles. But they refuse to recognize that these other implements do not wreck mass havoc. The difference between a shooting and a mass shooting is the tool used. But the gun lovers will equivocate, rationalize, squirm and side step the fact that a mad man with a semi-automatic weapon fitted with high capacity ammunition magazines poses a greater threat than a mad man with a Louisville Slugger or a blade.

California has the background checks in place they are pushing. this latest guy passed 3 of them, while undergoing psychiatric evaluation, while being investigated by the police.

The only potential effective use of background checks would be that if people not legally allowed to have a gun tried to buy one then they got their asses hauled off and put in jail for 10 years. But liberals don't want to do that either, they just want to say no. And they try again and again until they get a yes.

Liberals are so incompetent that even when they do anything right it ends up being wrong because they screw that up too.

 

[Peach]

When will we ever reform our knife and baseball bat laws? How many people must be slashed and bashed before we wake up and ban knives and bats? Its a national embarrassment.

I think that when knives and baseball bats account for 2/3 of our murders we should reform our laws. Right now, that honor is held by guns

good one dope; so 1/3 of the murders dont matter to you?

Went like a cloud, straight over your head. Enforcing current laws would help; still, current laws need to reexamined. The Patriot Act, and attendant legislation muddied the waters. Someone convicted of a Federal MARIJUANA crime twenty five years ago needs a Presidential pardon to possess a firearm. Yet a teenager, with the lack of mature insight too many have, can purchase an arsenal in my state. Something wrong right there. I do not want "more gun control" I want rational regulation(.) What do almost all spree firearm killings have in common? The youth of the killers.

 

[kaz]

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

You swung and missed., not an analogy at all.

So you have guns just to shoot at paper targets? LOL

As a gun owner I do not get people who are obsessed with guns. Could that be why the majority of gun owners aren't members of the gun lobby's arm , the NRA.

You own a gun?

So do you shoot and kill with it or did you just blow your entire argument you've been spewing for the last dozen posts

Yes, he keeps saying he owns a gun. He's full of shit. He's a city apartment dwelling liberal elitist snob who's never touched a gun and looks down on us heathens. I don't get the liberals like PaintMyHouse, RW and guno who have this ridiculous urge to say they know what blood thirsty murderers we are because the are gun owners too. Suuurreee they are.

PaintMyHouse finally admitted he was full of shit that his claim to know gun owners was a lie. He still claimed to own a gun and live in the middle of nowhere, but he finally admitted he is a liberal city snob who moved to the country and gave up the lie he interacted with actual living gun owners and admitted knows nothing about us.

 

[WinterBorn]

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

Guns are designed to shoot a projectile.

As I said before, the original invention of firearms was for warfare. But the uses for modern firearms are many. The gun itself does not select the target or fire the bullet.

Look, I agree that horrific massacres are only a tiny blip in overall gun murders, and that a ban on assault rifles would be trading away a freedom from citizens for virtually no change in overall gun deaths. There are more effective solutions than gun bans. But this coy line about guns being "just a tool" is silly. Like a hammer or a bat, a gun has an obvious useful purpose.

A hammer is made to swing at a target, but that target is obviously a nail. It can be used other ways, but if nails were different, the design of hammers would be different. If there were no nails, there'd be no hammers.

Same with a baseball bat. If baseballs were different, the design of baseball bats would be different.

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things. I'm not trying to be an asshole, everyone I've quoted above has made good points throughout this thread. But let's not pretend that the tools we make specifically for killing are actually completely neutral toward that end.

Indeed guns were originally designed to kill in warfare. And if used in defense, they will kill another human being. But most guns are use for hunting or for target shooting. es, hunting & pest control are killing. But in the context of this conversation, they are rarely used to kill. And the use is determined solely by the shooter.

 

[Paperman299]

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things.

Only you sick, violent criminals and liberals cannot conceive of guns being used for anything but killing.

Space invaders, darts, humans love shooting at targets. No one is imagining killing anyone when they shoot at clay pigeons or skeet. It's fun.

And criminals have guns and other weapons. People who carry guns for defense are not imagining "injuring and killing living things." Criminals are doing that, and you are doing that. Removing guns from the victims does nothing to unarm the criminals they want defense from.

Pretty sure I was incredibly explicit in that I don't support gun bans.

I agree that horrific massacres are only a tiny blip in overall gun murders, and that a ban on assault rifles would be trading away a freedom from citizens for virtually no change in overall gun deaths. There are more effective solutions than gun bans.

 

[Paperman299]

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

As I said before, the original invention of firearms was for warfare. But the uses for modern firearms are many. The gun itself does not select the target or fire the bullet.

Look, I agree that horrific massacres are only a tiny blip in overall gun murders, and that a ban on assault rifles would be trading away a freedom from citizens for virtually no change in overall gun deaths. There are more effective solutions than gun bans. But this coy line about guns being "just a tool" is silly. Like a hammer or a bat, a gun has an obvious useful purpose.

A hammer is made to swing at a target, but that target is obviously a nail. It can be used other ways, but if nails were different, the design of hammers would be different. If there were no nails, there'd be no hammers.

Same with a baseball bat. If baseballs were different, the design of baseball bats would be different.

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things. I'm not trying to be an asshole, everyone I've quoted above has made good points throughout this thread. But let's not pretend that the tools we make specifically for killing are actually completely neutral toward that end.

Indeed guns were originally designed to kill in warfare. And if used in defense, they will kill another human being. But most guns are use for hunting or for target shooting. es, hunting & pest control are killing. But in the context of this conversation, they are rarely used to kill. And the use is determined solely by the shooter.

The uses of hammers and bats is also determined by the user, but the purpose of the design is clear.

There's a reason target shooting isn't nearly as popular with paintball guns, slingshots, or other non-lethal items which also fire a projectile. I go skeet-shooting semi-regularly, and it's not because I actually think I may one day need to kill someone with a 12-gauge. Even in just recreational shooting, the fascination with the gun stems from its status as a killing implement. To have an honest discussion about guns, we need to all be able to accept this as the gun's fundamental characteristic, or the discussion doesn't just stall, it regresses.

This "guns-are-just-tools" stance is how you get people walking into restaurants with loaded assault rifles slung over their shoulders like accessories.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Look, I agree that horrific massacres are only a tiny blip in overall gun murders, and that a ban on assault rifles would be trading away a freedom from citizens for virtually no change in overall gun deaths. There are more effective solutions than gun bans. But this coy line about guns being "just a tool" is silly. Like a hammer or a bat, a gun has an obvious useful purpose.

A hammer is made to swing at a target, but that target is obviously a nail. It can be used other ways, but if nails were different, the design of hammers would be different. If there were no nails, there'd be no hammers.

Same with a baseball bat. If baseballs were different, the design of baseball bats would be different.

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things. I'm not trying to be an asshole, everyone I've quoted above has made good points throughout this thread. But let's not pretend that the tools we make specifically for killing are actually completely neutral toward that end.

Indeed guns were originally designed to kill in warfare. And if used in defense, they will kill another human being. But most guns are use for hunting or for target shooting. es, hunting & pest control are killing. But in the context of this conversation, they are rarely used to kill. And the use is determined solely by the shooter.

The uses of hammers and bats is also determined by the user, but the purpose of the design is clear.

There's a reason target shooting isn't nearly as popular with paintball guns, slingshots, or other non-lethal items which also fire a projectile. I go skeet-shooting semi-regularly, and it's not because I actually think I may one day need to kill someone with a 12-gauge. Even in just recreational shooting, the fascination with the gun stems from its status as a killing implement. To have an honest discussion about guns, we need to all be able to accept this as the gun's fundamental characteristic, or the discussion doesn't just stall, it regresses.

This "guns-are-just-tools" stance is how you get people walking into restaurants with loaded assault rifles slung over their shoulders like accessories.

slingshots can be very lethal

 

[Skull Pilot]

No a gun is designed to fire a projectile at a target.

A bat is designed to be swung at a target.

The target is solely the choice of people not of the tool being wielded.

Guns are designed to shoot a projectile.

As I said before, the original invention of firearms was for warfare. But the uses for modern firearms are many. The gun itself does not select the target or fire the bullet.

Look, I agree that horrific massacres are only a tiny blip in overall gun murders, and that a ban on assault rifles would be trading away a freedom from citizens for virtually no change in overall gun deaths. There are more effective solutions than gun bans. But this coy line about guns being "just a tool" is silly. Like a hammer or a bat, a gun has an obvious useful purpose.

A hammer is made to swing at a target, but that target is obviously a nail. It can be used other ways, but if nails were different, the design of hammers would be different. If there were no nails, there'd be no hammers.

Same with a baseball bat. If baseballs were different, the design of baseball bats would be different.

Guns are built around injuring and killing living things. I'm not trying to be an asshole, everyone I've quoted above has made good points throughout this thread. But let's not pretend that the tools we make specifically for killing are actually completely neutral toward that end.

Fair point I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that guns do not cause murder.