Re: Gun Control

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:25 am

DemonEyesJoe wrote:i just love dumb anti-gun bigots

Good to know you have an open mind.

by Paper Tiger Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:36 am

Colme wrote:I understand what you're getting at, but it is still easier to escape multiple assailants when none of them have a gun. And again, not everyone can be expected to be packing heat in case a roving gang attacks them.

I do agree that the best way to win a confrontation is to avoid it altogether. However, the whole purpose of attacking as a group is so the victim has little chance of escape (or, for that matter, put up an effective resistance). It doesn't take a whole gang either, 3 is plenty enough to make said confrontation quite unavoidable.

And true, not everyone can be expected to carry - but I think people deserve to be given the option to. It then becomes a matter of personal choice - if SHTF whatever the outcome it's a directly based on their own choosing, as opposed to it being a result of something that was forced upon them - one cannot realistically blame the powers that be for arming criminals, but one can most certainly blame said powers for disarming him/her against his/her will.

Colme wrote:The problem here is not the gun free zone, and you've already touched on it. You can't have a little 'gun-free zone' island smack in the middle of somewhere full of guns.

Sure you can - just look at about any major airport. And for the record I don't dislike the concept of gun-free zones - hell the more of them the better. But again, they have to be properly enforced. Although I think what you were getting at was that if there are no guns around to begin with, there is also no need for gun-free zones?

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:40 am

Colme wrote:
Belsfir wrote:This argument is really not progressing anymore. I appreciate the opinions of others and the amount of research on the topic. I have learned many a new thing in our debate as well. However, I fear that if it continues, it will merely become a cesspool of a discussion.

It's alright, I understand that we're challenging you beliefs here, but don't pretend that "the argument isn't progressing." If you don't have the answers, that's fine, but don't try to dismiss the entire argument when you run out of legitimate arguments to make.

No, you have it wrong. I feel this argument is not progressing anymore because we have been focusing on the topic of crime almost its entirety. I offered my opinion and supported it with statistics and facts. Whether you want to accept them is up to you. I find it rude that you suggested that I don't have answers and ran out of legitimate arguments to make, I could go at this all day if I wanted to and find more statistics that further my cause. Now, I don't want to come on as offensive, but you have only attacked gun supporting points without any supporting figures that did not come from a fictional television show. Why would anyone want to linger in an argument when the opposition has only been attacking points without its own sources and statistics?

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:13 am

Belsfir wrote:No, you have it wrong. I feel this argument is not progressing anymore because we have been focusing on the topic of crime almost its entirety. I offered my opinion and supported it with statistics and facts. Whether you want to accept them is up to you. I find it rude that you suggested that I don't have answers and ran out of legitimate arguments to make, I could go at this all day if I wanted to and find more statistics that further my cause. Now, I don't want to come on as offensive, but you have only attacked gun supporting points without any supporting figures that did not come from a fictional television show. Why would anyone want to linger in an argument when the opposition has only been attacking points without its own sources and statistics?

I pointed out several times that your statistics didn't prove anything, yet you keep ignoring it.

The reason I haven't been using statistics is because I'm not an empiricist. While I have made reference to reality in my arguments I try not to as best I can, and for the most part I haven't needed to. For instance, your argument that your "statistics" are valid because I haven't provide any is obviously fallacious, all we need is basic logic to tell that.

It's the equivalent of saying, "My statistics say gravity comes from magic pixies, and you have offered no statistics to refute me! Therefore, gravity is obviously caused by magic pixies!"

Paper Tiger wrote:And true, not everyone can be expected to carry - but I think people deserve to be given the option to.

I'm sympathetic to this argument, and I think people should be able to keep guns like this, so long as they're registered and there is proper screenings in place.

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:37 am

Colme wrote:
Belsfir wrote:No, you have it wrong. I feel this argument is not progressing anymore because we have been focusing on the topic of crime almost its entirety. I offered my opinion and supported it with statistics and facts. Whether you want to accept them is up to you. I find it rude that you suggested that I don't have answers and ran out of legitimate arguments to make, I could go at this all day if I wanted to and find more statistics that further my cause. Now, I don't want to come on as offensive, but you have only attacked gun supporting points without any supporting figures that did not come from a fictional television show. Why would anyone want to linger in an argument when the opposition has only been attacking points without its own sources and statistics?

I pointed out several times that your statistics didn't prove anything, yet you keep ignoring it.

The reason I haven't been using statistics is because I'm not an empiricist. While I have made reference to reality in my arguments I try not to as best I can, and for the most part I haven't needed to. For instance, your argument that your "statistics" are valid because I haven't provide any is obviously fallacious, all we need is basic logic to tell that.

It's the equivalent of saying, "My statistics say gravity comes from magic pixies, and you have offered no statistics to refute me! Therefore, gravity is obviously caused by magic pixies!"

Again, its up to if you want to accept it or not, and it doesn't take a genius to know that you clearly don't accept them. Its also not the fact that you did not offer any, its the fact you did not PROVE anything. Statistics and facts the best way to prove something, you wouldn't write a research report on gun control without sources would you? Sure, if you want to fail it.

I take the word of established fact as much more valid than the opinion of one man. However, if that's the way you want to roll this ball, then go ahead, I just don't want to participate in a discussion where a man believes his own logic weighs more that of researched statistics.

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:52 am

Belsfir wrote:Statistics and facts the best way to prove something, you wouldn't write a research report on gun control without sources would you? Sure, if you want to fail it.

Ever heard of the word epistemology? Go read some Descartes, it will rock your world.

"Statistics" are a horrible way of proving things since you can never truly be certain any statistic is correct. "Facts" are a nice idea, but tell me, how does one ascertain what is and isn't a fact? Apparently you've discovered the source of infallible truth that has eluded humanity since the dawn of philosophy and you've found it to be internet statistics.

Belsfir wrote:I take the word of established fact as much more valid than the opinion of one man.

The problem is not that you value "facts," the problem is you've given no way of determining what an "established fact" is. Do tell me, how do you know for certain that these things are true? I just know your answer will be riddled with fallacies I can delight myself with picking apart.

by **MiniSiets** Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:43 am

Let's review Belsfir's stats.

Belsfir wrote:Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

First of all, 52% is not "only" 52%. That means that guns account for the majority of mass murders beating out all other weapons combined. Furthermore, in order for your argument to be valid (that guns aren't the most lethal mass murder weapon), we would need to know the percentage of usage for fire and explosives to measure against it, because if they only fall in the range of somewhere between 1-10%, then that means that guns are still more lethal when you multiply that percentage by the average number of victims per incident because guns would be more frequently used. It's also worth noting that these stats only account for the 25 deadliest mass murders, and not all mass murders, which could be skewing the numbers in favor of fire/explosives because they are more likely to kill more people per incident despite that they may in actuality be very scarcely used once you take into account all mass murders.

I'm going to ignore delving too deeply into epistemology for now just for the sake of moving the argument forward. Assuming these stats are trustworthy, they still don't necessarily indicate what Belsfir thinks they do.

With that all being said, I'm just going to state my positions on gun control right now since I have yet to actually do so in this thread. However before I do I would like to make a clarification so that I am not misunderstood. It's important to note a distinction between "gun control" and "gun prohibition". Many pro-gun advocates seem to get caught up arguing a strawman of the opposition's position because no one actually said they wanted to ban all guns. In my case, I'm in favor of a certain degree of gun control so as to at least take some measures to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. When I look at the stats comparing Japan to the United States--that in 2008 alone Japan had merely 11 gun homicides versus the US' 9,484--I can't help but feel like something is terribly wrong. On the other hand though, I can't say for certain how many of those ~9k homicides might have been carried out anyway even if the guns didn't exist to perpetrate them, and many other factors can be affecting those stats that aren't even necessarily related to guns, such as poverty, drug wars, and access to healthcare. For these reasons I can only find the case in favor of total gun prohibition inconclusive for the time being.

One thing I'm certainly in favor of though is universal background checks, as currently gun shows and individual private sellers in the United States are legally allowed to sell guns without any background check whatsoever, which is a huge gaping loophole that makes access to guns easy for criminal cartels. Background checks provide a nice layer of security without taking away any responsible gun owner's weapons. I also tentatively support limiting excessive magazine size to minimize potential casualties.

My understanding of the second amendment as it is worded is that it does not clearly establish an individual right to own firearms, though in my personal view I think people should be allowed to regardless. Strictly from a legal standpoint though I realize my view is irrelevant, but I take issue with many of the Supreme Court's liberal interpretations of the law so whatever. :p

by **Sporadic** Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:53 am

I need my assault rifles and extended clips for zombie extermination.

by **MiniSiets** Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:27 am

Sporadic wrote:I need my assault rifles and extended clips for zombie extermination.

by SkepticalDragon Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:26 am

I regretfully don't have access to what I wrote previously so this will be partially by memory but also by what I would propose now. Admittedly there are aspects of my proposals that I am more skeptical and perhaps even hesitant about... even more so as I have discussed this subject gauging both the intellectual and emotional reaction to the same. However it is what it is... brainstorming from little a layperson like me on an anime message board in 2013...

1. Qualification screening, education, training, and other services. (Licensing)
2. Raising the age a person can 'independently' own, possess, or operate a firearm to twenty six years of age.
3. Mandatory permitting for pistols, "assault weapons", and the like.
4. On-site evaluation and screening prior to sale. (Universal background checks)
5. One month waiting period before the completion of a transaction.
6. Reorganizing, refunding, retooling the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and similar agencies.
7. Supporting the UN illegal arms trade treaty that aims to reduce the illegal flow of firearms between nations.
8. Safe and secure storage law, making persons liable for misuse and risky storage of their firearm or ammunition.
9. Safer and smarter firearm standards (eg: a safety mandatory for all new models)
10. Emergency weapon confiscation warrant (temporarily and with some creditable evidence).
11. Public morale and peacebuilding program (advocacy/outreach).
12. Suicidal and homicidal prevention program (advocacy/outreach).
13. Physical, automated, and human security improvement for public/common environments (eg: schools, supermarkets).
14. Gun maker liability (making it possible to sue gun makers for defects).
15. Public safety liability (making it possible to sue for failing to providing adequate security for the public).
16. Tax incentives for communal/cooperative membership of gun owners and public liability insurance.
17. Expanding access to self-defense classes (moreover for females)

Also while not directly related to gun control would in my view help reduce overall crime.

18. Reforming the justice system to a more humane and benevolent restorative, rehabilitative, and reconciliation system that focuses on individual liberty, dignity, and independence while based on science, wellness, and education.
19. Reforming the mental health care system to a more liberal "community support" model with better holistic care.
20. Expanding access to health care, education, employment, and welfare.

Some notes on this brainstorming of mine:

(1.) The qualification and licensing process I think should be liberal, perhaps even more so than it is now. I think that the idea of black-listing people virtually for life is a violation of their rights to bear arms. So this process would allow anyone to eventually prove themselves competent enough to exercise their right to a firearm or minimally give specific time/place exemptions for sporting activities. Able to be challenged and appealed when necessary.

(2.) Raising the minimal age one can 'independently' own, possess, or operate a firearm is aimed (pardon the pun) at reducing the disproportionate amount of gun crimes committed by emerging adults. However the key word is 'independent' meaning that with adequate supervision or under certain circumstances yes someone younger could operate, possess, or jointly-own a firearm. Presumably younger persons would still go through a similar qualification process akin to getting a learners permit.

(3.) Pistols concern me much more than "assault weapons" do to be candid and statistics support this, a disproportionate amount of gun crimes are committed with pistols... for obvious reasons. But as I mentioned before I think the system should be liberalized, meaning everyone has fair access... but presumably this would mean less pistols as the level of qualification, screening, education, and training would be higher than that of a regular license. Also I concede "assault weapons" is rather vague and problematic... in my mind the weapon I displayed in a previous post, the AA-12, is an assault weapon... But if someone is qualified to have it I can tolerate that.

(10.) Personally I think "probable cause" is too low of a burden of evidence for warrants of any kind, including arrests. "Some creditable evidence" is a slightly higher burden than "probable cause". I doubt this will be popular but the intent is to allow police to appeal to a judge the ability to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person that have some creditable evidence to be a serious risk to the community-at-large.

(11. & 12.) This presumably would mean refunding the studies into the causes of gun related injury and crime making it more possible to prevent it. Also the expansion of what is being known as "mental health first-aid", to teach employers/teachers/families to identify early symptoms of dangerous behavior and how to handle them, in addition to preventing suicidal/homicidal behavior.

(13.) If this means qualifying school faculty and staff to have firearms or some kind of non-lethal mace, I'm not sure. But it would possibly mean making it easier for schools and colleges to have police officers assigned to their campus. It would also definitely mean preparing plans for emergency situations.

(15.) This one intended to streamline filing lawsuits for locations that have clearly failed to keep the public safe (for example the aurora Cinemark theater) and as a result encourage preemptive efforts on the part of such locations to better secure their facilities.

Some of the other brainstorming proposals I put up previously like increasing the maximum penalties for gun related crimes... but after long discussion for various reasons I have somewhat abandoned some of these ideas. This one in particular... the more I learn about how skewed the "justice" and "penal" system is the more I think maximum sentencing should be reduced or minimal sentencing abolished... replaced with a better approach to policing, prosecution, justice, and reconciliation with survivors/community.

I am also somewhat fond of the idea of able bodied individuals or at least a single member of a household being encouraged/compelled to be qualified having a firearm for self-protection purposes. I also agree that the "duty to retreat" provisions of self-defense laws needs some reform, but not like the "stand your ground law" which in practice has become "chase that guy down, yeehaw!"

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:49 am

MiniSiets wrote:Let's review Belsfir's stats.

Belsfir wrote:Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.
First of all, 52% is not "only" 52%. That means that guns account for the majority of mass murders beating out all other weapons combined. Furthermore, in order for your argument to be valid (that guns aren't the most lethal mass murder weapon), we would need to know the percentage of usage for fire and explosives to measure against it, because if they only fall in the range of somewhere between 1-10%, then that means that guns are still more lethal when you multiply that percentage by the average number of victims per incident because guns would be more frequently used. It's also worth noting that these stats only account for the 25 deadliest mass murders, and not all mass murders, which could be skewing the numbers in favor of fire/explosives because they are more likely to kill more people per incident despite that they may in actuality be very scarcely used once you take into account all mass murders.

I'm going to ignore delving too deeply into epistemology for now just for the sake of moving the argument forward. Assuming these stats are trustworthy, they still don't necessarily indicate what Belsfir thinks they do.

With that all being said, I'm just going to state my positions on gun control right now since I have yet to actually do so in this thread. However before I do I would like to make a clarification so that I am not misunderstood. It's important to note a distinction between "gun control" and "gun prohibition". Many pro-gun advocates seem to get caught up arguing a strawman of the opposition's position because no one actually said they wanted to ban all guns. In my case, I'm in favor of a certain degree of gun control so as to at least take some measures to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. When I look at the stats comparing Japan to the United States--that in 2008 alone Japan had merely 11 gun homicides versus the US' 9,484--I can't help but feel like something is terribly wrong. On the other hand though, I can't say for certain how many of those ~9k homicides might have been carried out anyway even if the guns didn't exist to perpetrate them, and many other factors can be affecting those stats that aren't even necessarily related to guns, such as poverty, drug wars, and access to healthcare. For these reasons I can only find the case in favor of total gun prohibition inconclusive for the time being.

One thing I'm certainly in favor of though is universal background checks, as currently gun shows and individual private sellers in the United States are legally allowed to sell guns without any background check whatsoever, which is a huge gaping loophole that makes access to guns easy for criminal cartels. Background checks provide a nice layer of security without taking away any responsible gun owner's weapons. I also tentatively support limiting excessive magazine size to minimize potential casualties.

My understanding of the second amendment as it is worded is that it does not clearly establish an individual right to own firearms, though in my personal view I think people should be allowed to regardless. Strictly from a legal standpoint though I realize my view is irrelevant, but I take issue with many of the Supreme Court's liberal interpretations of the law so whatever. :p

Thank you for providing input that does not solely base itself on attacking the sources...

The death ratios are based on the weapon used per mass murder are accumulated over the entire 20th century. While where 50% of the mass murders having guns involved being only of the 25 most deadly mass murders. My observation that guns are not the most deadliest murder weapon is not based on the amount of total kills it has achieved, but rather the amount of kills it achieved per incident it was used. Perhaps I should of used different terms, such as the most effective murder weapon. My fear is that if guns become less available to criminals, that they might resort to using these other weapons, which will cause more deaths and property damage.

This also expands farther than crime, it has to do with personal protection, hunting, and the formation of a militia, in case the need arises.

Making sure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands is a priority, but what I heard that constitutes as the "wrong hands" is not clear. For instance, returning soldiers that have PTSD not being able to purchase a firearm because they are considered mentally ill.

What I feel should be done is to make sure criminals and people who are confirmed as homicidal in attitude are not able to purchase the firearms. While background checks would be nice, we also have to think about the economy of gun manufacturers and dealers. Gun control laws would harm the industry, and more job loss is something we should not settle for. Limiting magazine size, in my opinion, is an effort that will have little effect. While I do not feel the need to have extending clips, I do know that reloading a gun does not take much time either, and standard clip sizes are more than capable enough to do plenty of harm.

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:49 am

Minisiets wrote:I'm going to ignore delving too deeply into epistemology for now just for the sake of moving the argument forward. Assuming these stats are trustworthy, they still don't necessarily indicate what Belsfir thinks they do.

Belsfir wrote:Thank you for providing input that does not solely base itself on attacking the sources...

Seriously what.

You just thanked him for doing exactly what I've been doing this entire time, arguing your sources don't prove what you think they do. I would recommend people don't even bother debating this Belsfir person, their not interested in debate, when they don't have the answers for something they'll just try and distract you with some ad hominem nonsense.

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:59 am

Colme wrote:
Minisiets wrote:I'm going to ignore delving too deeply into epistemology for now just for the sake of moving the argument forward. Assuming these stats are trustworthy, they still don't necessarily indicate what Belsfir thinks they do.

Belsfir wrote:Thank you for providing input that does not solely base itself on attacking the sources...

Seriously what.

You just thanked him for doing exactly what I've been doing this entire time, arguing your sources don't prove what you think they do. I would recommend people don't even bother debating this Belsfir person, their not interested in debate, when they don't have the answers for something they'll just try and distract you with some ad hominem nonsense.

You have been only providing basic, one sided, and even rude responses during this debate that focused on attacking the information I have provided with fictional sources, sarcasm, and ignorance. I thanked him for looking at the spectrum of things more broadly, and not defaulting to a simple attack plan.

It looks like your taking this farrrr too seriously, taking this to a personal level as well. I will admit I have been taking it too seriously too, but this is getting pretty out hand. Were just voices in a debate, and our discussion changes nothing in the world either.

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:13 pm

Belsfir wrote:You have been only providing basic, one sided, and even rude responses during this debate that focused on attacking the information I have provided with fictional sources, sarcasm, and ignorance. I thanked him for looking at the spectrum of things more broadly, and not defaulting to a simple attack plan.

I've only been cordial, and of the pro-gun advocates your the only one that's been any trouble. While they had the courtesy to address each of my arguments you ignored the ones you couldn't respond to. I responded to every single one of your arguments fairly and in return you lashed back with an ignorant understanding of empiricism and when I rebuked you, you glossed over it.

You don't get to ignore the arguments that you don't have answers for and pretend people are 'attacking' when you don't know how else to respond.

It looks like your taking this farrrr too seriously, taking this to a personal level as well.

Don't worry, I'm quite impersonally saying you're an inadequate debater. But yes, more ad hominem please, it only demonstrates my point.

by SkepticalDragon Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:17 pm

Colme wrote:
Minisiets wrote:I'm going to ignore delving too deeply into epistemology for now just for the sake of moving the argument forward. Assuming these stats are trustworthy, they still don't necessarily indicate what Belsfir thinks they do.

Belsfir wrote:Thank you for providing input that does not solely base itself on attacking the sources...

Seriously what.

You just thanked him for doing exactly what I've been doing this entire time, arguing your sources don't prove what you think they do. I would recommend people don't even bother debating this Belsfir person, their not interested in debate, when they don't have the answers for something they'll just try and distract you with some ad hominem nonsense.

I suspect Belsfir sincerely means well and sincerely believes his arguments are not being refuted. Why I stopped before with him was... statistics can sometimes leave you with inconclusive information as I quoted verbatim from the study he quoted before... and he isn't willing to accept that. To him this is all so extraordinarily clear and only those who are unwilling or incapable of getting it are the ones objecting... I find it inconsiderate.

Moreover because I am willing to consider more guns might mean in some cases less crime, I am pro-guns, in as much as I am not anti-guns and that I do think gun rights do serve a purpose... But his conclusion was that I was out of some kind of liberal bias rejecting his sources, attacking his sources on unfounded presumptions, and asserting opinions as facts directing me to the ACTUAL study I quoted for the discussion that he mentioned but didn't cite...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Page 27
On their face, Tables 1, 2, and 3 and the comparisons gleaned from them suggest that gun ownership is irrelevant, or has little relevance, to murder. Historical and demographic comparisons offer further evidence. Again, all the data may be misleading. It is conceivable that more guns do equal more murder, but that this causation does not appear because some unidentifiable extraneous factor always intervenes.

Which is almost exactly what I said in the first place, inconclusive... because the data isn't so clear...

So clearly citing his source is just liberal bias in an attempt to attack his source with unfounded presumptions. I should of known better... Which is why I stopped...

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:28 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:I suspect Belsfir sincerely means well and sincerely believes his arguments are not being refuted. Why I stopped before with him was... statistics can sometimes leave you with inconclusive information as I quoted verbatim from the study he quoted before... and he isn't willing to accept that.

Thanks. The issue with "statistics" is what I tried to point out earlier (perhaps in too extreme terms, by asserting my general dislike for empiricism), but it was glossed over. Regardless, this is just an exercise in futility now.

by SkepticalDragon Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:36 pm

Colme wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:I suspect Belsfir sincerely means well and sincerely believes his arguments are not being refuted. Why I stopped before with him was... statistics can sometimes leave you with inconclusive information as I quoted verbatim from the study he quoted before... and he isn't willing to accept that.

Thanks. The issue with "statistics" is what I tried to point out earlier (perhaps in too extreme terms, by asserting my general dislike for empiricism), but it was glossed over. Regardless, this is just an exercise in futility now.

I think you have presented yourself well. Better than my ramblings. I simply don't know how to effectively communicate with Belsfir on this subject so I stopped. But it seems like he responds to you better than he does to me for example... so well done.

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:37 pm

This all looks like a HUGE misunderstanding,

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Colme wrote:
Minisiets wrote:I'm going to ignore delving too deeply into epistemology for now just for the sake of moving the argument forward. Assuming these stats are trustworthy, they still don't necessarily indicate what Belsfir thinks they do.

Belsfir wrote:Thank you for providing input that does not solely base itself on attacking the sources...

Seriously what.

You just thanked him for doing exactly what I've been doing this entire time, arguing your sources don't prove what you think they do. I would recommend people don't even bother debating this Belsfir person, their not interested in debate, when they don't have the answers for something they'll just try and distract you with some ad hominem nonsense.

I suspect Belsfir sincerely means well and sincerely believes his arguments are not being refuted. Why I stopped before with him was... statistics can sometimes leave you with inconclusive information as I quoted verbatim from the study he quoted before... and he isn't willing to accept that. To him this is all so extraordinarily clear and only those who are unwilling or incapable of getting it are the ones objecting... I find it inconsiderate.

The base of my argument was not refuted by any means of contradicting evidence (the only way it could be refuted is if enough evidence is shown that gun control out weighs its cons, I will get into this later). I do object that this is all clear tho, its more like the dire opposite, its pea soup here as we dig through the answers. However, I truly feel the cons outweigh the pros of gun control, with what has currently been presented (and not presented).

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Moreover because I am willing to consider more guns might mean in some cases less crime, I am pro-guns, in as much as I am not anti-guns and that I do think gun rights do serve a purpose... But his conclusion was that I was out of some kind of liberal bias rejecting his sources, attacking his sources on unfounded presumptions, and asserting opinions as facts directing me to the ACTUAL study I quoted for the discussion that he mentioned but didn't cite...
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Page 27
On their face, Tables 1, 2, and 3 and the comparisons gleaned from them suggest that gun ownership is irrelevant, or has little relevance, to murder. Historical and demographic comparisons offer further evidence. Again, all the data may be misleading. It is conceivable that more guns do equal more murder, but that this causation does not appear because some unidentifiable extraneous factor always intervenes.
Which is almost exactly what I said in the first place, inconclusive... because the data isn't so clear...

So clearly citing his source is just liberal bias in an attempt to attack his source with unfounded presumptions. I should of known better... Which is why I stopped...

I don't see the lack of a connection between gun ownership and crime as a bane to my argument, but rather it shows what it is: a lack of a connection. Neither do I think liberal bias is to blame here either.

Now, if the data is not clear, then why must everyone be quick to assume that guns are to blame?

I may not be a great debater, my attempts at portraying information are rather poor, and my responses don't show my point too well, but I want to try to best I can to convey a point that cannot be refuted because of the lack of clearness:

The true core of my argument is to ask, "why must guns be criminalized?"
I offered points that there are greater threats than it, and that its connections to crime are strange. The statistics have done exactly as I wished they would, they shown that this topic is not ready for the conclusiveness to expect that gun control will work. Yet it would seem that people are more than ready to get up and speak out against it. They have cited that it worked in other countries, yet there is no proof due to the lack of evidence. I have yet to see proof that guns are the problem and thus should be limited. I don't understand why such a conclusion has been made in spite of this all. So therefore, why take this blindfolded shot and assume that crime will be less if guns are outlawed or even repressed? The only effect that I am certain about in this, is that we will have less personal security and the formation of a militia will be much harder.

So in short, we do not know if this will be of a benefit to us, but we do know it can harm an entire industry, restrict the formation of a militia, and people will be less protected in case of an home invasion or the such.

The cons have outweighed the pros, in my opinion, due to the nature that the pros are not defined. I don't feel like the country should undertake such an experiment to see if it works.

by SkepticalDragon Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:58 pm

Belsfir wrote:I don't see the lack of a connection between gun ownership and crime as a bane to my argument, but rather it shows what it is: a lack of a connection. Neither do I think liberal bias is to blame here either.

I say inconclusive because it means not dismissing doubt or settling dispute, not allowing for a reasonable conclusion, being able to be fairly interpreted in numerous ways, or open to criticism. In this subject of what causes or prevents crime is too complex to simply reduce to too many or too few guns, and because of the strange reality we live both could be valid... depending on circumstances.

Belsfir wrote:Now, if the data is not clear, then why must everyone be quick to assume that guns are to blame?

We don't throw guns in jail after a shootings, we throw people in jail after shootings. No one here is saying that giving someone a gun turns them into a madman. What people seem to be dancing around is how does a society balance a right/duty to firearms with rights to a society that is safe/peaceful. There is room for valid disagreement because peoples conceptions of what that right, duty, safety, peace, and even society means is up for argument. No one is saying "ban all firearms" but rather how do we balance these two out. The rights of the individual when compared to the community.

Belsfir wrote:I may not be a great debater, my attempts at portraying information are rather poor, but I want to convey a point that cannot be refuted because of the lack of clearness:

I don't consider myself a good debater so I suspend judgment.

Belsfir wrote:The true core of my argument is to ask, "why must guns be criminalized?"

I don't think anyone wants to criminalize guns, but regretfully guns are used in crime which is a problem. So there is a want to restrict certain guns from the general population in the name of public safety.

Belsfir wrote:I offered points that there are greater threats than it, and that its connections to crime are strange. Yet it would seem that people are more than ready to get up and speak out against it. I have yet to see proof that guns are the problem and thus should be limited.

It's a lot more than just guns... Political science in a very base definition is "who gets what, when, where, and why". Which as a political science professor put it to us, "there is method to the madness, but it may be more madness." Or to put it in a more legalistic sense your right to a firearm is subject to governmental regulation of fair time, place, and manner.

So the question is how can these gun control laws be reformed (which many are already on the books but simply not enforced, except in some limited cases which is unfair and unequal treatment before the law)... that's the question. What can be done with the government which is basically a method of social engineering to make a better society, because regardless if we reform the laws or not or even abolish them all together, there will be factors of social engineering at work... and if we believe in democracy the people should be the ones in charge of that.

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:03 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:I don't see the lack of a connection between gun ownership and crime as a bane to my argument, but rather it shows what it is: a lack of a connection. Neither do I think liberal bias is to blame here either.
I say inconclusive because it means not dismissing doubt or settling dispute, not allowing for a reasonable conclusion, being able to be fairly interpreted in numerous ways, or open to criticism. In this subject of what causes or prevents crime is too complex to simply reduce to too many or too few guns, and because of the strange reality we live both could be valid... depending on circumstances.
Belsfir wrote:Now, if the data is not clear, then why must everyone be quick to assume that guns are to blame?
We don't throw guns in jail after a shootings, we throw people in jail after shootings. No one here is saying that giving someone a gun turns them into a madman. What people seem to be dancing around is how does a society balance a right/duty to firearms with rights to a society that is safe/peaceful. There is room for valid disagreement because peoples conceptions of what that right, duty, safety, peace, and even society means is up for argument. No one is saying "ban all firearms" but rather how do we balance these two out. The rights of the individual when compared to the community.
Belsfir wrote:I may not be a great debater, my attempts at portraying information are rather poor, but I want to convey a point that cannot be refuted because of the lack of clearness:
I don't consider myself a good debater so I suspend judgment.
Belsfir wrote:The true core of my argument is to ask, "why must guns be criminalized?"
I don't think anyone wants to criminalize guns, but regretfully guns are used in crime which is a problem. So there is a want to restrict certain guns from the general population in the name of public safety.
Belsfir wrote:I offered points that there are greater threats than it, and that its connections to crime are strange. Yet it would seem that people are more than ready to get up and speak out against it. I have yet to see proof that guns are the problem and thus should be limited.
It's a lot more than just guns... Political science in a very base definition is "who gets what, when, where, and why". Which as a political science professor put it to us, "there is method to the madness, but it may be more madness." Or to put it in a more legalistic sense your right to a firearm is subject to governmental regulation of fair time, place, and manner.

So the question is how can these gun control laws be reformed (which many are already on the books but simply not enforced, except in some limited cases which is unfair and unequal treatment before the law)... that's the question. What can be done with the government which is basically a method of social engineering to make a better society, because regardless if we reform the laws or not or even abolish them all together, there will be factors of social engineering at work... and if we believe in democracy the people should be the ones in charge of that.

Very well, but it leaves the question unanswered as to why do we even need gun control if we don't know if it works? We are a constitutional democracy, meaning some rights cannot be infringed even if the people want it to be so, such as a national religion.

by DemonEyesJoe Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:08 pm

Colme wrote:
DemonEyesJoe wrote:i just love dumb anti-gun bigots

Good to know you have an open mind.

dont get me wrong, anti-gun people are not all bigots, but bigots CAN be anti-gun, idk how you misunderstood that, and i apologize, would it be more clear to say i dislike bigots in general? (however in this case it was toward a certain group) Embarassed

im very opening minded, what i DONT like is closed minded people, people who will spat in your face for having an opinion different from thier own, that shit just pisses me off, how can AMERICA! the land of freedom become so closed minded to other things, not to mention the rampant xenophobia and nationalism that runs in this country

by Doomguy Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:34 pm

Sorry to reset the conversation (Wow 7 pages already!) Let's remember that the issue in question is gun "control". Not necessarily gun "ban".

Even if you do think guns should be banned keep in mind that is nearly impossible to pull off in America due to the law and the people.

Gun "control" though... I like to see how far people will be willing to go with it.

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:53 pm

DemonEyesJoe wrote:im very opening minded, what i DONT like is closed minded people, people who will spat in your face for having an opinion different from thier own, that shit just pisses me off, how can AMERICA! the land of freedom become so closed minded to other things, not to mention the rampant xenophobia and nationalism that runs in this country

Ah, in that case my apologies. You are in fact awesome.

Doomguy wrote:Let's remember that the issue in question is gun "control". Not necessarily gun "ban".

Yes of course. I would never advocate taking away hunting weapons, and I think there is plenty of room for weapons of self-defense with adequate screening, registration and training procedures in place.

by Deathfire123 Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:30 am

Here's a very simple and childish answer from my neice, "Ummm... But if only bad people have guns because the rule guys says no one's allowed to have them, then... ummm... it would be easier for the police to find and catch the bad guys."

I am inclined to agree with her

by JAMSM Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:02 am

Belsfir wrote:Very well, but it leaves the question unanswered as to why do we even need gun control if we don't know if it works? We are a constitutional democracy, meaning some rights cannot be infringed even if the people want it to be so, such as a national religion.

Eh, if this is true, then why does our constitution expressly say it can be amended?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html wrote:
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Deathfire123 wrote:Here's a very simple and childish answer from my neice, "Ummm... But if only bad people have guns because the rule guys says no one's allowed to have them, then... ummm... it would be easier for the police to find and catch the bad guys."

I am inclined to agree with her

Eh, that is (to at least some extent) true, but wouldn't it be somewhat late by the time the guns were noticed.
Also, that would be for the case of a total gun ban.

//This makes me think though: (I'm sure this has already been addressed.)
Wouldn't the influx of illegal weaponry outweigh the controls that would be set for guns.
True, it wouldn't be every potential villainous character carrying an illegal gun, but still, if people are willing to have illegal guns now, would making it more illegal change anything?

by Sponsored content