@ #notallmen >=[

[Moira]

#notallmen more like #gunownership for this thread

I don't think anyone believes that all men are rapists. However, from what I've seen, many females have to be wary of all unknown males in public on the chance that something could happen to them. It does hurt that they have to be so wary, but I understand why there's so much caution, and why people avoid males when they're alone, give fake numbers, etc.

I think maybe we could switch it too #toomanypeople rape/get raped because obviously it's a big problem.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Fluorspar

[Tryhard]

Oh thank god, Tuesday was yesterday.

Wait...

DID YOU TROLL ME YESTERDAY???

hue

I don't think anyone believes that all men are racists.

wrong word m8 just saying, was amusing though.

gun ownership is personally a topic I don't want to get into...

i think that's been said best by esau: it's still very much there, but not to the degree that we're led to believe. i don't think anyone here wants women to be objectified, so i think the safe conclusion is that all of us here think that we should make progress in having our culture think differently about it.

I believe so, yes.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Tryhard

[Moira]

wrong word m8 just saying, was amusing though.

oh dear lord what have I done

[Esau of Isaac]

this is not entirely true. if guns are easily accessible to the point where i am significantly less secure without one (which may be true for where i have to go in order to complete medical school), then that really compromises my ability to make the choice that no, i will not own a handgun. if you allow other people to own guns, and i am at a clear disadvantage if i don't own one, then you're not giving me much of a choice!

Of course it's giving you a choice, you simply have to deal with the fact that everyone else has a choice as well. If guns were banned you'd have to deal with the fact that these same people have a choice of using knives, and so on and so forth.

you don't ban something because of "fringe elements;" you ban something because it's potentially more dangerous than it is beneficial. take the heroin thought experiment i proposed earlier, or replace heroin with landmines, or something.

EDIT: if the statistics have anything to say about it, i am totally unconvinced if you try to say that legalized gun ownership is more beneficial than it is dangerous.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to quantify whether it's beneficial enough for you. It's beneficial enough for me, and it's beneficial enough for millions of others. Guns are a reality in America, there are hundreds of millions of them and they're not going to disappear anytime soon. Dealing with them will never be as simple as banning them.

Too bad people don't buy dogs for such trivial purposes.

I never said they did. I don't know why you keep continuing as though I did.

[dondon151]

Of course it's giving you a choice, you simply have to deal with the fact that everyone else has a choice as well. If guns were banned you'd have to deal with the fact that these same people have a choice of using knives, and so on and so forth.

this is nothing more than a perversion of choice if one choice is plainly less safe than the other. i'm sorry that you don't see it that way. if, for example, being a muslim means that i have to go live in a ghetto, it would be ludicrous to defend the notion that i have the choice to be muslim. obviously i have a choice, but it is not a meaningful one.

at least with knives, i don't have to worry about being killed by someone who is not immediately adjacent to me.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to quantify whether it's beneficial enough for you. It's beneficial enough for me, and it's beneficial enough for millions of others. Guns are a reality in America, there are hundreds of millions of them and they're not going to disappear anytime soon. Dealing with them will never be as simple as banning them.

non-arguments; non-arguments everywhere. utterly unconvincing. there is no rational point being made, but simply the obstinate statement that guns are real in america and they exist and people have them and change is impossible. almost every defense of gun ownership ends up degenerating into this silly little mantra.

Edited May 29, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

this is nothing more than a perversion of choice if one choice is plainly less safe than the other. i'm sorry that you don't see it that way. if, for example, being a muslim means that i have to go live in a ghetto, it would be ludicrous to defend the notion that i have the choice to be muslim. obviously i have a choice, but it is not a meaningful one.

at least with knives, i don't have to worry about being killed by someone who is not immediately adjacent to me.

How is it a perversion of choice, simply because one is the most optimal choice? Nevermind that you're extremely overstating the necessity of owning a firearm for defense.

And that's a bit of handwaving with regards to knives, is it not? It doesn't change that the knife now becomes the most optimum form of self-defense. Doesn't it logically follow then that choosing not to own a knife for self-defense, same as a firearm, would be plainly less safe?

non-arguments; non-arguments everywhere. utterly unconvincing.

It is a waste of time. You're asking me to prove to you that guns are more beneficial than harmful. I've gone through the rodeo a thousand times, I'm not going to bother again. It's a fact that wholesale gun bans are impossible in America's firearms climate, so lamenting about risk-benefit analysis is a fruitless endeavor even if I believed you'd bother thinking about anything I put forth.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[dondon151]

How is it a perversion of choice, simply because one is the most optimal choice? Nevermind that you're extremely overstating the necessity of owning a firearm for defense.

i have a right to safety; my safety is compromised unless i own a firearm (nevermind that my safety is necessarily compromised if i own a firearm). the hypothetical muslim has a right to adequate living standards; his right is compromised unless he eschews islam.

don't just handwave that example! i'm fairly certain that the number one argument in favor of owning a firearm is for self-defense. note that this has absolutely nothing to do with what you personally enjoy doing with your firearms.

And that's a bit of handwaving with regards to knives, is it not? It doesn't change that the knife now becomes the most optimum form of self-defense. Doesn't it logically follow then that choosing not to own a knife for self-defense, same as a firearm, would be plainly less safe?

i do own knives. i cook with them. if i really wanted to, i could use them for self-defense. it shouldn't even need to be argued that a gun is far more effective at endangering another's safety than a knife.

It's a fact that wholesale gun bans are impossible in America's firearms climate,

why?

[eclipse]

I have very little idea how we went from dead dude with rant to gun control.

[Esau of Isaac]

i have a right to safety; my safety is compromised unless i own a firearm (nevermind that my safety is necessarily compromised if i own a firearm).

Then it's a pointless argument to even begin with. Your safety is compromised with or without one. And it would follow that it would be compromised in a world without them as well with any weapon that acts more effectively than others.

You have a right to safety. You don't have a right to be safe at the expense of others' rights.

i do own knives. i cook with them. if i really wanted to, i could use them for self-defense. it shouldn't even need to be argued that a gun is far more effective at endangering another's safety than a knife.

But would you carry a knife around with you in such a situation? Would it necessitate banning knives because you're unsafe without owning knives? I'm not arguing that a gun is less effective than a knife for endangering another's safety. As long as it endangers you more than being unarmed then it's an equivalent argument to what you are saying.

why?

For several reasons. America has an extremely strong cultural attachment to firearms. The value placed on the second amendment is second (lol) only to the first. The number of guns that exist in citizens' hands dwarfs any other nation on the planet, thus it's necessarily a logistical nightmare to round them up. It will become worse as federal legislation is gradually introduce to tighten gun restrictions, as any such laws are instantly followed by paranoid arms-purchasing; for reference, it's a pain in the ass for me to get .22 because gun-nuts continue coming in every day as the store opens and buying all of it. Because of all this, it's not economically feasible for the government to implement programs in which they purchase firearms back from the populace, as some other nations have done in the past. What's more, obtaining illegal and unregistered firearms in America is very easy for a number of reasons.

All you need to do is take a look at Clinton's assault weapons ban to see why half-assed efforts at gun reform are impossible. I agree that some form of gun control is necessary. But the United States will never be in a situation like many other gun-free (or near so) countries. The federal government cannot even handle stringent background checks and controlling arms from moving across the border. Even imagining the chaos of feds making attempts to disarm the public is difficult.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Chiki]

Of course it's giving you a choice, you simply have to deal with the fact that everyone else has a choice as well. If guns were banned you'd have to deal with the fact that these same people have a choice of using knives, and so on and so forth.

Knives are useful for all sorts of things (open boxes, cut food, etc.). They make life easier. Guns take lives.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to quantify whether it's beneficial enough for you. It's beneficial enough for me, and it's beneficial enough for millions of others.

This isn't a counterargument as much it is rhetoric. There's nothing constructive to reply to here.

Guns are a reality in America, there are hundreds of millions of them and they're not going to disappear anytime soon. Dealing with them will never be as simple as banning them.

Rape is a reality in America, there are hundreds of thousands of themand they're not going to disappear anytime soon.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do what we can by banning them and trying to buy them back, no matter how hard it is. Being lazy isn't worth the loss of lives.

I never said they did. I don't know why you keep continuing as though I did.

Your entire argument collapses here. The problem is that the reason people buy guns, which you admitted, (protection, it literally just sits there all day unlike a knife or a dog) doesn't increase utility as much as a knife or a dog does, and no alternate use of a gun can.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

Then it's a pointless argument to even begin with. Your safety is compromised with or without one. And it would follow that it would be compromised in a world without them as well with any weapon that acts more effectively than others.

it is an indisputable fact that i would be safer in a developed country without guns than i would be in the US. clearly the argument is not pointless in light of this evidence. there is a slippery slope fallacy entrenched somewhere within your rhetoric: i am not as concerned about knives, quarterstaves, rolling pins, etc. as i am about firearms because they simply are not as dangerous, and the threat to my safety is smaller.

You have a right to safety. You don't have a right to be safe at the expense of others' rights.

at the expense of what rights? if i am safer as a result of a firearms ban, then it follows that everyone else is safer as well. clearly i am not infringing on others' right to safety.

so what rights am i infringing on? the right to bear arms? that is not an intrinsic right. people do not have rights (i can't wait for this to be misquoted, by the way); they must assert them using evidence and rhetoric. there are plenty of strong arguments for the right to freedom of speech, for example. that the second amendment is written into an imperfect document has no bearing on whether this right should exist, since it only takes another amendment to strike that out of the constitution entirely.

But would you carry a knife around with you in such a situation? Would it necessitate banning knives because you're unsafe without owning knives? I'm not arguing that a gun is less effective than a knife for endangering another's safety. As long as it endangers you more than being unarmed then it's an equivalent argument to what you are saying.

it's not an equivalent argument by virtue of the danger posed by the respective weapons being not equivalent. the words "less" or "more" should not belong in the same thought as the word "equivalent" if you care at all about adhering to proper definitions.

But would you carry a knife around with you in such a situation? Would it necessitate banning knives because you're unsafe without owning knives? I'm not arguing that a gun is less effective than a knife for endangering another's safety. As long as it endangers you more than being unarmed then it's an equivalent argument to what you are saying.

ask someone living in the UK, germany, japan, etc. does he carry a knife around for protection because he can't carry a gun? i'm willing to bet that the answer is very likely to be no.

For several reasons. America has an extremely strong cultural attachment to firearms. The value placed on the second amendment is second (lol) only to the first.

this is such a poor argument that i'm amazed to have to address it. america had, in its past, an extremely strong cultural attachment to slavery, the exploitation of (mostly immigrant) workers, the disgustingly supremacist concept of manifest destiny, and so on. america still has a strong cultural attachment to organized anti-intellectualism in the form of evangelical religion. these are cultural aspects that should have been, and were, changed. thank goodness they were!

Edited May 29, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

it is an indisputable fact that i would be safer in a developed country without guns than i would be in the US. clearly the argument is not pointless in light of this evidence. there is a slippery slope fallacy entrenched somewhere within your rhetoric: i am not as concerned about knives, quarterstaves, rolling pins, etc. as i am about firearms because they simply are not as dangerous, and the threat to my safety is smaller.

Essentially, the threat posed is not relevant unless it is a gun, is what you are saying?

at the expense of what rights? if i am safer as a result of a firearms ban, then it follows that everyone else is safer as well. clearly i am not infringing on others' right to safety.

The right to protect and defend themselves. It doesn't follow that you are necessarily safer, just that you are safer because you choose to opt out of owning a firearm.

so what rights am i infringing on? the right to bear arms? that is not an intrinsic right. people do not have rights (i can't wait for this to be misquoted, by the way); they must assert them using evidence and rhetoric.

there are plenty of strong arguments for the right to freedom of speech, for example. that the second amendment is written into an imperfect document has no bearing on whether this right should exist, since it only takes another amendment to strike that out of the constitution entirely.

There are plenty of strong arguments for the right to bear arms as well, you simply don't feel they're strong. And yeah, those rights must be asserted. And they have been asserted, consistently, and more strongly in recent years after continued failure of anti-gun legislation.

it's not an equivalent argument by virtue of the danger posed by the respective weapons being not equivalent. the words "less" or "more" should not belong in the same thought as the word "equivalent" if you care at all about adhering to proper definitions.

Okay. So please, quantify the danger that you are exposed to by not owning a firearm compared to one in which firearms are limited. What is the relevant greater danger you face, right now, by living in this country as compared to, say, the UK? Is the danger you face consistent in all parts of the country? Is the danger you face consistent across all places that allow the purchase of firearms?

ask someone living in the UK, germany, japan, etc. does he carry a knife around for protection because he can't carry a gun? i'm willing to bet that the answer is very likely to be no.

You are arguing that you are less safe because you must carry a gun around to have equal protection compared to others that have guns. It must follow then that you are less safe in an environment that is gun free unless you arm yourself with the next most efficient defensive weapon.

this is such a poor argument that i'm amazed to have to address it. america had, in its past, an extremely strong cultural attachment to slavery, the exploitation of (mostly immigrant) workers, the disgustingly supremacist concept of manifest destiny, and so on. america still has a strong cultural attachment to organized anti-intellectualism in the form of evangelical religion. these are cultural aspects that should have been, and were, changed. thank goodness they were!

1.) Americans by and large did not have "an extremely strong cultural attachment to slavery." Less than 1% of Americans ever even owned slaves.

2.) The exploitation of workers was not individually American, and was reflected in all industrialized societies. It was not characteristic of the American people, and its persistence wasn't reflected in the populace by and large.

3.) Manifest Destiny wasn't forcefully changed, it faded. There was no majority of people that held this belief, in fact many were opposed to it.

The concept of gun ownership is very strongly defended by the American people. I am sorry if you don't like that but please don't compare the concept of owning a gun to slavery.

[Chiki]

1.) Americans by and large did not have "an extremely strong cultural attachment to slavery." Less than 1% of Americans ever even owned slaves.

Just lol. I didn't even grow up in America and I know more about American history than you do. The most important reason the American civil war started was because of slavery:

Most professional historians agree with Stephens that slavery and the status of African Americans were at the heart of the crisis that plunged the U.S. into a civil war

The south got over it!

Edited May 29, 2014 by Chiki

[Esau of Isaac]

I did not say that slavery was not an integral part of the Civil War, Chiki. The chief concern fought between the Confederacy and the Union was over state's rights, slavery was simply inextricably linked for obvious reasons.

Please stop being demeaning or I am not going to respond to you

[Tryhard]

Okay. So please, quantify the danger that you are exposed to by not owning a firearm compared to one in which firearms are limited. What is the relevant greater danger you face, right now, by living in this country as compared to, say, the UK? Is the danger you face consistent in all parts of the country? Is the danger you face consistent across all places that allow the purchase of firearms?

Well, considering our homicide rate is a quarter that of the United States, and is even lower in countries like Australia (which had a problem with multiple school shootings before the ban), Germany, etc. So yes, I feel a lot safer in these countries. I won't say that all countries that restrict firearms are safer, but I think there is a case to be made. Yes, there are a lot more stabbings, but a knife is a far less efficient weapon.

(That said, I doubt anything is going to happen in the US. The most you can hope for is a restriction on assault rifles. People are strongly defensive of their right to have firearms.)

Edited May 29, 2014 by Tryhard

[Esau of Isaac]

Well, considering our homicide rate is a quarter that of the United States, and is even lower in countries like Australia (which had a problem with multiple school shootings before the ban), Germany, etc. So yes, I feel a lot safer in these countries. I won't say that all countries that restrict firearms are safer, but I think there is a case to be made.

Okay, yes, but is this necessarily an issue of firearms? In other words, can it be said that without guns these homicides simply would not have happened? By banning guns, can it be said that the homicide rate would decrease to match the UK's?

Isn't a bit unfair to boil down a nation's crime to guns? You touched on it in your last sentence, but doesn't the existence of countries that don't ban guns yet maintain lower rates of homicide than yours harm your point?

(That said, I doubt anything is going to happen in the US. The most you can hope for is a restriction on assault rifles. People are strongly defensive of their right to have firearms.)

(Not sure if you already knew, discount if so) Assault rifles are already effectively banned federally, and have been basically since their inception.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Chiki]

I did not say that slavery was not an integral part of the Civil War, Chiki. The chief concern fought between the Confederacy and the Union was over state's rights, slavery was simply inextricably linked for obvious reasons.

Please stop being demeaning or I am not going to respond to you

There's nothing demeaning about knowing history more than you. That wasn't meant to be demeaning at all. If Southerners were willing to go to war to keep their slaves, then:

Americans by and large did not have "an extremely strong cultural attachment to slavery

This is just obviously false. Their attachment was so strong they went to war over it!

This is coming from the person who asked me if I was autistic, lol.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Chiki

[Tryhard]

Okay, yes, but is this necessarily an issue of firearms? In other words, can it be said that without guns these homicides simply would not have happened? By banning guns, can it be said that the homicide rate would decrease to match the UK's?

Not necessarily. However, I do think that the banning of firearms does affect how easy it is to carry out homicide in these countries. I understand what you're saying about how people would just use knives then or any other dangerous weapon instead but to me if it's dramatically easier to kill someone with a gun then it is to kill someone with a knife, you would naturally see a decrease in successful homicides should guns be taken out of the question.

Isn't a bit unfair to boil down a nation's crime to guns? You touched on it in your last sentence, but doesn't the existence of countries that don't ban guns yet maintain lower rates of homicide than yours harm your point?

That's the tricky part, see. There are a lot of factors going into the homicide rate of each country. Some countries that restrict firearms are hugely unstable. Yet some of the stable European (and other) countries enjoy some of the lowest homicide rates in the world. I think it has an effect, and if the US (as a fairly stable country, right?) was to enact an immediate firearm ban (that was actually successful), I would imagine that lower homicide rates would follow, maybe not to the extent of these countries, but I think there would still be a notable difference.

(Not sure if you already knew, discount if so) Assault rifles are already effectively banned federally, and have been basically since their inception.

Huh. I'm more ignorant than I thought about this. I had heard that they were regulated more than ordinary handguns, though.

(Regardless, I'm probably done with this particular topic.)

Edited May 29, 2014 by Tryhard

[AMCC4728]

Huh. I'm more ignorant than I thought about this. I had heard that they were regulated more than ordinary handguns, though.(Regardless, I'm probably done with this particular topic.)

You really aren't horribly misinformed, as most americans don't know this fact. This is probably due to pro gun control legislation targeting the AR-15 and calling it an "assault weapon" as a scare tactic. Most people assume the AR stands for Assault Rifle when in reality it stands for ArmaLite Rifle.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Obese Sonic

[Esau of Isaac]

Not necessarily. However, I do think that the banning of firearms does affect how easy it is to carry out homicide in these countries. I understand what you're saying about how people would just use knives then or any other dangerous weapon instead but to me if it's dramatically easier to kill someone with a gun then it is to kill someone with a knife, you would naturally see a decrease in successful homicides should guns be taken out of the question.

I can't argue that the gun is the more effective weapon, but what about when examining murders --being premeditated-- which are carried out at arm's length? There are no effective defensive techniques against a knife-for barehanded opponents, so a planned murder at close range would be similarly deadly unless the victim were able to run away. I don't know how many murders are carried out in which the perpetrator kills multiple victims in quick succession, but if the number is not significant then wouldn't the vast majority of these crimes be unaffected?

That's the tricky part, see. There are a lot of factors going into the homicide rate of each country. Some countries that restrict firearms are hugely unstable. Yet some of the stable European (and other) countries enjoy some of the lowest homicide rates in the world. I think it has an effect, and if the US (as a fairly stable country, right?) was to enact an immediate firearm ban (that was actually successful), I would imagine that lower homicide rates would follow, maybe not to the extent of these countries, but I think there would still be a notable difference.

But isn't it possible to maintain firearm ownership while also lowering homicide rates? There are European countries that have both. And wouldn't it be easier for a country like American to adapt in such a manner, as compared to one in which the government attempts to forcibly ban weapons? Even registration of arms has been facing increased failure recently, as gun-owners are becoming increasingly disillusioned with gun-control methods and lack of effectiveness.

Huh. I'm more ignorant than I thought about this. I had heard that they were regulated more than ordinary handguns, though.

(Regardless, I'm probably done with this particular topic.)

Like Obese Sonic said, the term "assault weapon" is generally thrown around in anti-gun rhetoric, and so many assume the term is synonymous with assault rifles. Many politicians will point to black-colored, menacing-looking carbines and claim that they are assault weapons and need to be banned to stem the tide of crime. In truth, however, they are very rarely used in gun-related crime. In fact, the largest perpetrator of gun crime in the US is carried out using pistols, because they are quite deadly while also easily concealable.