Gun Control, RE: Charleston Massacre

[largebus]

Shocking, but not really surprising.

On a base level, this tragedy has less to do with his motive so much as his access to firearms. In how many other countries is a gun ever considered as a birthday present? If i was an extreme racist and hellbent on committing a crime like this I would have to go to extreme lengths to obtain such a weapon (without a licence) that would probably land me in trouble before I even got close, and rightfully so.

There are always going to be hateful, bitter people, people willing to hurt others to meet their own ideologies, the best you can do is limit the means for them to carry it out.

Edited June 19, 2015 by largebus

[blah the Prussian]

Shocking, but not really surprising.

On a base level, this tragedy has less to do with his motive so much as his access to firearms. In how many other countries is a gun ever considered as a birthday present? If i was an extreme racist and hellbent on committing a crime like this I would have to go to extreme lengths to obtain such a weapon (without a licence) that would probably land me in trouble before I even got close, and rightfully so.

There are always going to be hateful, bitter people, people willing to hurt others to meet their own ideologies, the best you can do is limit the means for them to carry it out.

This, basically. The Second Amendment needs to be repealed for shit like this to stop. You cannot change the minds of people like this, so the best thing to do here is to force people to adhere to the basic rules of civilization.

Edit so no double post: so Fox News is apparently calling this an anti Christian hate crime to try to link it to Islamic terrorism. Jesus Christ, need I say more? We need to stop shifting the responsibility away from those who deserve it, NOW.

Edited June 19, 2015 by blah2127

[Klokinator]

By the way, since people have already started pointing the finger at guns as the culprit, I'll leave this here along with some sources before I go to work.

Source: http://jeanneassam.publishpath.com/jeannes-book

Source: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7684728

Interestingly, that same church eventually kicked her out for saying she was gay. Thanks for saving our lives! Get out!

So in case anyone is going to say "We need to ban weapons", I'll just remind you that she's an example of weapons saving lives. 4 people plus the gunman still died, but it could have been much more.

[blah the Prussian]

By the way, since people have already started pointing the finger at guns as the culprit, I'll leave this here along with some sources before I go to work.

Source: http://jeanneassam.publishpath.com/jeannes-book

Source: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7684728

Interestingly, that same church eventually kicked her out for saying she was gay. Thanks for saving our lives! Get out!

So in case anyone is going to say "We need to ban weapons", I'll just remind you that she's an example of weapons saving lives. 4 people plus the gunman still died, but it could have been much more.

Of course, the gunman probably would not have had that gun to begin with if guns were banned. That image itself, as well, is very biased; "war to disarm America"? Really? Citizens should not be trusted with weapons used on the field of battle. I'd question any argument used by the Tea Party.

[-Cynthia-]

Also, the woman who stopped the shooting in that instance was a former police officer- not really an example of an average citizen.

[Klokinator]

Of course, the gunman probably would not have had that gun to begin with if guns were banned. That image itself, as well, is very biased; "war to disarm America"? Really? Citizens should not be trusted with weapons used on the field of battle. I'd question any argument used by the Tea Party.

That's a terrible argument. Guns are a force equalizer. If you're a woman and a big buff dude is trying to rape you, which will stop him: A gun or your fists? Here's a hint, it's not your fists. Now, if he has a gun, he obviously has the advantage, but he already had it to begin with.

Here's the really weird thing, 'liberals' (I actually think it's a dumb term that demonizes people for thinking a certain way but let's use it for the sake of simplicity) believe in this idea of equality, right? And yet we all know women are weaker than men in the physical strength department. We all know a certain percentage of men are stronger than their own gender anyway. The strongest woman is still not as strong as the strongest man. So if hypothetically we banned guns, then any big strong guy would be able to have his way with someone else. Robbery, rape, etc is all now well within his reach, and while the police still exist, when he's going to murder you in a second, the police are a long number of minutes away.

Guns are the power equalizer. If you're a common criminal, say a burglar, are you going to rob a neighborhood where you think people have guns in their homes, or one where they don't? Put yourself in that person's shoes. The answer is pretty obvious, you go for the lower value but lower risk target. Why rob Donald Trump when he has armed guards, attack dogs, defensive turrets, etc when this beat up shack down the street likely has an unarmed person either away from the house or there defenseless?

Guns are not just an equalizer of force for the citizenry. They're an equalizer of force against the government. If you've been paying attention, there's kind of a police state brewing in the USA. I know, the 1,200 people killed by cops last year in the USA is barely even noticeable [sarc/off], but it's the truth. Now, obviously Nazi Germany is the example I have to use since that's the clearest cut example of what happens when a dictator takes charge, disarms the citizenry, and commits genocide, but it is not the only one. There's also Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. They all have the same pattern: Create violence hysteria, demand to disarm the citizenry, they take control, and then genocides happen on an incredible scale.

Of course, compared to the weapons and armor the USA military possesses today, the average pea shooter/rifle any citizen has is pretty useless, but at least you can take a couple invaders out with you, and if everyone can do this, they can mount a heck of a resistance, maybe even garner support from the international community, decrying your government for committing crimes against humanity, etc.

Finally though, there is one last reason gun controls don't work. So what if you manage to completely eliminate all guns? Okay, granted mass shootings won't happen, and this is assuming you manage to get rid of 100% of them. (Spoiler: You won't even come lose). However, killers and violent people are still going to kill and be violent. Not just because that's the way they are, but because this is an epidemic unique to the USA. Maybe that deranged kid will "only" target some girl jogging by herself in a park and knife her to death, rather than shoot up a church, but in the end someone will still die. And even if guns are removed, do you know how easy it is to make home-made bombs? Killers will just have to get more creative. Bows and arrows can still skewer a person pretty efficiently. A slingshot can kill. Even a club can still be used. And worst of all, none of those weapons are a real equalizer of force. If I have a club and a guy twice my size has a club, I'm going to get the shit beat out of me, if not killed.

No, this is not gun violence, it is violence with a gun. Take away the guns, and instead it will be violence with a bomb, or with a baseball bat, or some other gruesome weapon.

Now, at this point, I think of other countries that have banned guns 'successfully'. You know, Britain, Sweden, Australia, Germany, etc. Now, ignoring the HUGE cultural differences (We're a competitive country that literally glorifies violence, compared to their mostly pacifistic ways) and why it works for them, they are not a peachy perfect symbol of peace. Many stats show that when guns are banned, gun violence goes down. Okay, duh, that's a given. But they ignore that other types of violence often increase. Britain is plagued by awful rape problems, and there are so many articles talking about Sweden being 'the rape capital of the world' it's not even funny. Here, have a google search. (It's worth pointing out that four other countries qualify too and there's some debate, but when Sweden's rape stats are being compared with the goddamn Congo, that really says something)

Don't these women (and men) deserve the right to fight back? If a woman has a gun, bam, the rapist is dead. Hell, you don't even have to shoot, pull it out and they usually flee like hell. Most rapists aren't interested in a target that fights back, they want to either have power and domination, or they want to pretend the target is willing and 'likes it'. Guns save rape victims. (P.S. Lol MSNBC, so typical of you.) I'm gonna ignore that bullshit 1-in-4 rape statistic, but for the sake of argument, she's right in that a gun would have likely saved her life. Nothing is worse than feeling completely powerless.

Now, back to the original topic. Guns provide a safety blanket for anyone in the area. Let's say the deranged kid who murdered the people in this church had faced resistance. Would he have perhaps killed less than 8 people? Would it have only been one or two? The statistics say yes. Even if YOU don't personally carry a gun and don't feel comfortable, what if you end up like the guy in this video, saved by someone else who does? Sure, it was an undercover cop who killed him, but it could have been someone else. Cops get the training, but there's no reason you can't too. You wear a seatbelt to protect yourself in case of a car accident, and you call a taxi when you drink to protect yourself (and others) from not drinking and driving, this is the same thing.

Finally, I conclude with an article directly related to that video of the police officer, laws on gun control. Note that Brazil has much higher control rates than the USA, yet the motorcycle thief still had a gun. Gun controls prevent good citizens from defending themselves, while criminals will always find a way around them. http://www.latitudenews.com/story/what-the-u-s-obama-can-learn-from-brazils-epidemic-of-gun-violence-newtown/

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[-Cynthia-]

So the US having a much higher gun homicide rate is due to 'culture', not lack of gun control, but you insinuate that Sweden's rape issues are due to strict gun control laws?

I'll note that Sweden has similar legislation to its neightbors like Norway and Denmark with regards to gun control, but Sweden has three times as many rapes as Norway for instance. Part of this may be due to how incidents are reported in Sweden. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

And while yes, the UK has a high rape rate...the US is usually higher on such lists despite low gun control laws and high gun ownership.

I'm not seeing much besides a statistically irrelevant anecdote that guns actually prevent rape or...any other crime really. Research suggests that owning a firearm makes one more susceptible to crime, not less. http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

[MacLovin]

Of course, the gunman probably would not have had that gun to begin with if guns were banned. That image itself, as well, is very biased; "war to disarm America"? Really? Citizens should not be trusted with weapons used on the field of battle. I'd question any argument used by the Tea Party.

criminal elements will still obtain firearms, even if they're banned.

[Skynstein]

That's a terrible argument. Guns are a force equalizer. If you're a woman and a big buff dude is trying to rape you, which will stop him: A gun or your fists? Here's a hint, it's not your fists. Now, if he has a gun, he obviously has the advantage, but he already had it to begin with.

Here's the really weird thing, 'liberals' (I actually think it's a dumb term that demonizes people for thinking a certain way but let's use it for the sake of simplicity) believe in this idea of equality, right? And yet we all know women are weaker than men in the physical strength department. We all know a certain percentage of men are stronger than their own gender anyway. The strongest woman is still not as strong as the strongest man. So if hypothetically we banned guns, then any big strong guy would be able to have his way with someone else. Robbery, rape, etc is all now well within his reach, and while the police still exist, when he's going to murder you in a second, the police are a long number of minutes away.

Guns are the power equalizer. If you're a common criminal, say a burglar, are you going to rob a neighborhood where you think people have guns in their homes, or one where they don't? Put yourself in that person's shoes. The answer is pretty obvious, you go for the lower value but lower risk target. Why rob Donald Trump when he has armed guards, attack dogs, defensive turrets, etc when this beat up shack down the street likely has an unarmed person either away from the house or there defenseless?

Guns are not just an equalizer of force for the citizenry. They're an equalizer of force against the government. If you've been paying attention, there's kind of a police state brewing in the USA. I know, the 1,200 people killed by cops last year in the USA is barely even noticeable [sarc/off], but it's the truth. Now, obviously Nazi Germany is the example I have to use since that's the clearest cut example of what happens when a dictator takes charge, disarms the citizenry, and commits genocide, but it is not the only one. There's also Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. They all have the same pattern: Create violence hysteria, demand to disarm the citizenry, they take control, and then genocides happen on an incredible scale.

Of course, compared to the weapons and armor the USA military possesses today, the average pea shooter/rifle any citizen has is pretty useless, but at least you can take a couple invaders out with you, and if everyone can do this, they can mount a heck of a resistance, maybe even garner support from the international community, decrying your government for committing crimes against humanity, etc.

Finally though, there is one last reason gun controls don't work. So what if you manage to completely eliminate all guns? Okay, granted mass shootings won't happen, and this is assuming you manage to get rid of 100% of them. (Spoiler: You won't even come lose). However, killers and violent people are still going to kill and be violent. Not just because that's the way they are, but because this is an epidemic unique to the USA. Maybe that deranged kid will "only" target some girl jogging by herself in a park and knife her to death, rather than shoot up a church, but in the end someone will still die. And even if guns are removed, do you know how easy it is to make home-made bombs? Killers will just have to get more creative. Bows and arrows can still skewer a person pretty efficiently. A slingshot can kill. Even a club can still be used. And worst of all, none of those weapons are a real equalizer of force. If I have a club and a guy twice my size has a club, I'm going to get the shit beat out of me, if not killed.

No, this is not gun violence, it is violence with a gun. Take away the guns, and instead it will be violence with a bomb, or with a baseball bat, or some other gruesome weapon.

Now, at this point, I think of other countries that have banned guns 'successfully'. You know, Britain, Sweden, Australia, Germany, etc. Now, ignoring the HUGE cultural differences (We're a competitive country that literally glorifies violence, compared to their mostly pacifistic ways) and why it works for them, they are not a peachy perfect symbol of peace. Many stats show that when guns are banned, gun violence goes down. Okay, duh, that's a given. But they ignore that other types of violence often increase. Britain is plagued by awful rape problems, and there are so many articles talking about Sweden being 'the rape capital of the world' it's not even funny. Here, have a google search. (It's worth pointing out that four other countries qualify too and there's some debate, but when Sweden's rape stats are being compared with the goddamn Congo, that really says something)

Don't these women (and men) deserve the right to fight back? If a woman has a gun, bam, the rapist is dead. Hell, you don't even have to shoot, pull it out and they usually flee like hell. Most rapists aren't interested in a target that fights back, they want to either have power and domination, or they want to pretend the target is willing and 'likes it'. Guns save rape victims. (P.S. Lol MSNBC, so typical of you.) I'm gonna ignore that bullshit 1-in-4 rape statistic, but for the sake of argument, she's right in that a gun would have likely saved her life. Nothing is worse than feeling completely powerless.

Now, back to the original topic. Guns provide a safety blanket for anyone in the area. Let's say the deranged kid who murdered the people in this church had faced resistance. Would he have perhaps killed less than 8 people? Would it have only been one or two? The statistics say yes. Even if YOU don't personally carry a gun and don't feel comfortable, what if you end up like the guy in this video, saved by someone else who does? Sure, it was an undercover cop who killed him, but it could have been someone else. Cops get the training, but there's no reason you can't too. You wear a seatbelt to protect yourself in case of a car accident, and you call a taxi when you drink to protect yourself (and others) from not drinking and driving, this is the same thing.

Finally, I conclude with an article directly related to that video of the police officer, laws on gun control. Note that Brazil has much higher control rates than the USA, yet the motorcycle thief still had a gun. Gun controls prevent good citizens from defending themselves, while criminals will always find a way around them. http://www.latitudenews.com/story/what-the-u-s-obama-can-learn-from-brazils-epidemic-of-gun-violence-newtown/

Forgetting that the rapist is very likely armed as well (he would be dumb if he wasn't), and has advantage of surprise...

Speaking of my country, since you mentioned it, there was a survey in which the result was that most guns in the hands of criminals had legal origin.

Go away, teabagger.

[Klokinator]

Research also shows that owning a weapon makes robbers dead or flee. By the way, linking to The Guardian for anti-gun laws is tantamount to me linking to the NRA or some other pro-gun website for my own arguments. I hate it when people use the dumb 'your source isn't legitimate argument', but in this case... they really are not very credible. They're often one of the first to twist a story with deceptive or inflammatory titling in order to garner page views and shares. I prefer linking to local news sources, they usually tend to report the facts first and sensationalism second.

Also, Norway and Denmark have plenty of other crime issues. Rape isn't the only one. It's just the big one generally committed by one strong person against one weak mostly defenseless person. And anyway, they all have very high rape rates regardless.

Source: http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2013/09/11/i-am-swedish-but-i-live-n-absurdistan/(I'm not really fond of this article as a source but here it is)

Source: http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/12/norway-rape-and-muslims-study-much.html(This one seems to be well laid out and very methodical.)

Go away, teabagger.

Very mature! I'm not a liberal nor a teabagger, I follow my own path which I call the Path of Common Sense. I know, it's hard to make well articulated arguments rather than yell ad-hominem insults, but please do try. This is in Serious Discussion for a reason.

criminal elements will still obtain firearms, even if they're banned.

You are correct. And to anyone who says otherwise, why wouldn't they? If they're going to break the law and burglarize a house, rape a woman, kill a dude, why not obtain a gun? Saying "ban guns to end gun crimes" is the same as saying "make murder illegal to end all murders!". Guess what? Making something illegal doesn't magically make criminals stop doing it! (And if you think it does, I remind you of the failed War on Drugs. Remember how we got rid of them all? Oh, we didn't.)

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[-Cynthia-]

From the first article you linked: "n this New Sweden we have more reported rapes than any other country in the European Union, according to a study by professor Liz Kelly from England. More than 5 000 rapes or attempted rapes were reported in 2008 (last year it was more than 6 000). In 2010 another study reported that just one country in the world has more rapes than Sweden, and that is Lesotho in South Africa … For every 100 000 inhabitants Lesotho has 92 reported rapes, Sweden has 53, The United States 29, Norway 20 and Denmark 7.

If Denmark has a 'huge rape problem', then what does that make the US who has over four times as many?

The second article you linked just seems to be various statistics relating to the representation of certain ethnic groups and regions of Norway in relation to rape in Norway. I'm not seeing anything that supports the conclusion of 'guns prevent rape' (or other sorts of violent crime).

Edited June 20, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[Baldrick]

Even though America doesn't have gun control laws, there are plenty of people who choose not to carry guns. Some people may feel uncomfortable with potentially ending someone's life, even if they are attacked, and there exist non-lethal deterrents like pepper spray and tasers that couldn't be used to commit massacres.

In this particular incident, the gun was bought for the shooter as a birthday present. So it's a distinct possibility gun control laws could have prevented it.

[Skynstein]

Very mature! I'm not a liberal nor a teabagger, I follow my own path which I call the Path of Common Sense. I know, it's hard to make well articulated arguments rather than yell ad-hominem insults, but please do try. This is in Serious Discussion for a reason.

Sorry, not interested in writing walls of text.

I mean, do you really think criminals are stupid? That they don't know the law? In a country with legalized weapons, a serial rapist would prepare for the possibility that the victim is carrying a gun, not to mention he's the attacker so he has surprise on his side. Chances are the girl won't be able to even pull the gun on him.

Also, depending on what happens, if the girl shoots and kills him, she could be charged in many countries for the excess in self-defense, which is a perfectly fine thing to happen because, in the unlikely scenario that she does overpower the rapist enough to point a gun and shoot at him, she's no longer under any threat, is she?

Finally, you posted a teabagger propaganda image. Teabaggers are the subject of ridicule even in the US for a reason. Pure laissez-faire died in the 1929 crash, which it caused. When Hoover got elected, he did too little, too late.

[largebus]

It took a massacre worse than any in US history, thirty-five lives (and one gunman) to bring about gun control to its current level in Australia. I don't think the system is perfect, but what brutal massacres have we had since 1996? Dare I say, it would take a similar death toll to Port Arthur before action is taken? I really hope not.

Legislation like what our government introduced will not work in the US; with their gun culture, they won't be able to follow the lead of other countries.

It will take generations of educating kids about the dangers and appropriate use of guns, e.g. how they are NOT a great self-defence mechanism, as many like to claim, how owning a gun without a licence is like driving a car without the necessary training, responsible use of the weapon--you get the idea. It sounds more patronising than it really is.

As for the rape statistics, it may be that guns prevent it from happening somewhat. Maybe they'll reduce shark attack or snakebite rates if we all had one as well.

[Klokinator]

As for the rape statistics, it may be that guns prevent it from happening somewhat. Maybe they'll reduce shark attack or snakebite rates if we all had one as well.

#LiberalLogic, comparing animals who don't know what a gun is to humans who do. Truly incredible leap of logic right there.

In a country with legalized weapons, a serial rapist would prepare for the possibility that the victim is carrying a gun

Oh actually, this is a terrible argument. If he knows guns are legalized, rather than just attacking the juiciest target, he scopes out the target to see if she has a gun. Great, now he avoids ones that can fight back (Exactly as I said he would) and then targets those who can't. Sooooo once again, owning a gun keeps one woman safe while another woman who thinks guns are icky/scary/unnecessary gets raped. Good point! Thanks for making my point that much clearer.

I mean, do you really think criminals are stupid?

No. But you do?

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[-Cynthia-]

Even though America doesn't have gun control laws, there are plenty of people who choose not to carry guns. Some people may feel uncomfortable with potentially ending someone's life, even if they are attacked, and there exist non-lethal deterrents like pepper spray and tasers that couldn't be used to commit massacres.

In this particular incident, the gun was bought for the shooter as a birthday present. So it's a distinct possibility gun control laws could have prevented it.

Indeed- and this is pretty common for mass murders. Of the 143 guns possessed by mass murderers in the US over the past 30 years or so, over 3/4 were obtained legally. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

There is the old "but criminals will just find ways to get guns illegally!" argument- but shouldn't gun control laws at least be strict enough to force murderers to use illegal means to obtain them? More extensive background and psychological tests, removal of the gun show loophole(if you buy a gun at a gun show, no background check essentially) etc. could help on this end.

[Klokinator]

shouldn't gun control laws at least be strict enough to force murderers to use illegal means to obtain them?

-While regular citizens won't have the means to defend themselves... why would Grandpa Jim have an illegal gun? He won't because he's a law abiding citizen. The criminal will because he isn't.

And once again, if criminals don't have guns, they will use some other weapon. Maybe a bomb. Maybe an unequal power weapon, such as a club or a knife. Grandpa Jim doesn't have the strength to fight off a burglar, but a pistol means if he has the strength to pull a trigger, he can fight back. Take away his gun and he's defenseless.

Murderers are still going to murder. Take away one weapon and another replaces it. Laws only matter to those that follow them.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[Nobody]

While I think tighter gun control would indeed help prevent things like this from happening, people need to stop thinking it's a magical panacea that would drastically decrease murder rate in the US. Yeah, maybe tighter regulation could be very good in some cases, like requiring people to undergo psychological tests before owning guns, but downright banning them probably wouldn't really prevent murders from being common, at all.

Here in Brazil, we've gone through a very big ban on guns 12 years ago, and the murder rate actually increased. Now, I'm not saying that it increased because it was made harder for civilians to get guns, that's not what I believe at all, but banning guns isn't really an effective way to fight crime, if that's the only notable measure you take. I do think that psychological tests for gun owners would be a really good measure to prevent stuff like this particular case (which as shocking as they are, are only a very small % of the total murders) from happening, though.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Nobody

[-Cynthia-]

-While regular citizens won't have the means to defend themselves... why would Grandpa Jim have an illegal gun? He won't because he's a law abiding citizen. The criminal will because he isn't.

And once again, if criminals don't have guns, they will use some other weapon. Maybe a bomb. Maybe an unequal power weapon, such as a club or a knife. Grandpa Jim doesn't have the strength to fight off a burglad, but a pistol means if he has the strength to pull a trigger, he can fight back. Take away his gun and he's defenseless.

Murderers are still going to murder. Take away one weapon and another replaces it. Laws only matter to those that follow them.

If Grandpa Jim can't pass a background check or psychological test, then he should have a gun anyway? Also, committing homicides(particularly mass homicides) with a club or knife is less effective and thus less chosen as a route. Other countries do not have equal 'other weapon' based homicides to America's gun homicides.

Still waiting from any source from you that actually supports your claim that guns reduce crime btw.

[Klokinator]

Still waiting for any argument that makes sense btw. I already said that banning guns will decrease gun crimes and mass gun murders. That's stupidly obvious. What it will not do however is reduce actual crime by any significant amount. Criminals will still use some other weapon. Maybe it won't be 10 people in a church or a middle school, but instead a lone jogging girl in the woods who gets stabbed to death.

But fine, here's some sources for guns reducing crime:

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Yih-Chau-Chang-responsible-citizens-firearms/2014/07/01/id/580338/

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/26/to-protect-the-innocent-we-need-more-guns-in-the-hands-of-honest-people/(It's just Forbes, not credible at all amirite)

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/more-subjects/criminal-justice/crime/does-gun-control-reduce-crime

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm(And we finish with an academized study on the subject)

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

• 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
• 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
• 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
• 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
• 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
• 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

By the way.

Still waiting from any source from you

I'm very familiar with this tactic. It's used for one of two reasons.

1. "HAH YOUR SOURCE ISN'T CREDIBLE LOLOL" ad hominem attack.

2. You don't really care about the source, you just want to make it look like I'm pulling statistics out of midair and therefore discredit my carefully thought-out and reasoned argument.

Nobody ever says "QUOTE UR SOURCE" because they're genuinely interested in who the source is/reading it will change their mind. It's just a throwaway distraction in a debate used to allow the attacker sound like the moral high ground. It's a pretty piss-poor debate tactic.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[-Cynthia-]

How are 'gun crimes' and 'mass murders' not 'actual crimes'? I can't believe I'm saying this, but homicide is actually a big deal.

First story is opinions of people, nothing statistical.

Second source- gunowners.org and you said the guardian was bad lol. Over half of these sources are from one researcher (Kleck).

Forbes is another opinion piece lol, this doesn't tell me anything. I want data, not philosophy.

CliffNotes why are you citing this lol

The last one is by the NRA and over 20 years old...and also barely cites research

I don't care what felons supposedly think about what having a gun might affect them- I care about how gun control laws actually affect crime rates. The US has a lot more homicides and more rapes than most other developed countries.

[Klokinator]

I'm very familiar with this tactic. It's used for one of two reasons.

1. "HAH YOUR SOURCE ISN'T CREDIBLE LOLOL" ad hominem attack.

>that moment when called it

[feplus]

The US has a lot more homicides... than most other developed countries.

This is true. There are also many differences between the United States and other developed countries: geography, a deeply-rooted gun culture, proximity to unstable nations, and the aftereffects of institutional racism to name a few.

Linear comparisons between America and Europe wrt the effectiveness of gun control legislation are unwise. What works for Britain and Australia cannot be assumed to work for America.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the "moral argument" for gun rights. Grant that widespread gun access leads to more crime; what about those who say we are entitled to buy guns? That it should be a protected activity even if it's not always best for society?

Edited June 20, 2015 by feplus

[Baldrick]

You're guilty of the same thing regarding the Guardian, right? You're nothing but a hypocrite.

A gun is easy to obtain, easy to use and effective - it's a lot harder to inflict multiple homicides with a knife or a club without being subdued.

That said, Nobody has a point. Gun control laws won't fix everything overnight. But every little bit helps.

Should we stop enforcing vaccinations because they can't cure all diseases?

Edited June 20, 2015 by Baldrick

[Klokinator]

Should we stop enforcing vaccinations because they can't cure all diseases?

Poor comparison. Vaccinations have somewhere around a 99.7% success rate in killing off the virus (Or more specifically, in preventing the virus from infecting). When gun control has that same percentage of success in ending all crime, we can talk.

Wait, you're not an anti-vaccer, are you? Because... that's just silly.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Klokinator