Get Yer Guns.

[Phoenix]

I don't know if anyone said this already cause I was too lazy to read everything, but here's how I see it.

There's no point in taking away people's guns. Human beings adapt like nothing else on earth. If you take away their guns, soon you'll have to take away their knives cause people will turn into knife throwing experts. You can kill people by throwing kitchen knives at them with enough velocity and this is just one of many optional non balistic weapons. Next you'll have to start taking away the box cutters and anything that could potentially be used as a weapon. Eventually people will be hijacking people's cars at fistpoint. Yeah the violence is going to continue regardless but making guns illegal to own will only create more comical violence in the end. Hell I have a sword, and police of the medival days carried swords so that makes me an armed combatant. Hopefully if something that stupid happened the police could still keep their guns so they could shoot those knife throwing, tazer toting, fist jacking criminals and protect us. Yeah I know I'm vague.

[borkborkbork]

Sorry for the delay, real life got in the way >_>

No it does not. If I unlawfully shoot someone with the gun, I have infringed on that person's right to live. Not only will I be punished accordingly (if convicted of the crime, of course) I will also have my right to own guns taken away.

I suppose all this would hinge on the idea that "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people". I was building the arguement for this up with Esau if Isaac, but does that idea require that the people who kill others with guns be rational beings? If not, then it can be argued that guns do indeed kill people. If so? Well, it's quite naive to think that people are rational beings all their waking life.

I suppose the counterargument for that would be, all the more reason for to carry a gun - to stop those who have gone irrational. The thing with that is that perhaps they would not have gone on a rampage if they didn't have a gun, or at the very least, if they did not have a gun, the damage they could do would be limited.

It has yet to be established that guns infringe on the right to live. How do you come to this conclusion? Because people can utilize guns to kill other people? That is quite a stretch. It's too much of a stretch for me to buy at all.

Because besides recreational usage of guns - which I don't think is the point here - guns should only be used as a deterrant for crimes. But here we have all this talk about shooting someone if they do the crime. Does someone infriging on your rights give you permission to infringe on theirs? More specifically, does someone commiting a crime deserve to be shot?

Our rights are not endangered based what people might do. They are endangered when someone or something actively works to infringe our rights. Certainly that is exactly what the banning of guns is?

That may be so while guns are used solely as a deterrant - a bluff. But if someone calls that bluff?

Yes, I can do these things. But the system is not perfect, and I do not trust the intentions of any of them, whether I voted for them or not.

It's hard to see why you would call Hume the penultimate pessimist, when his argument from fear runs exactly along those lines. The state of war he postulates hinges on that lack of trust.

But anyways, I still fail to see how the system is not perfect enough. I can't imagine the US government having strayed so far from the system of constituitional democracy as to warrant its people to not trust that system anymore. Any abuse of power would not only be the fault of the government, but the fault of the people not stopping them.

If not marijuana, then acid. If we want to talk about hard drugs, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. These can all be attained very easily, yet they are illegal. And in fact, the US has a very aggressive anti drug policy... that just so happens to not work.

All those drugs can be grown and/or extracted from legal products that have an everyday use. I don't see how you can grow a gun, nor assemble one from common items.

Apparantly not, if you think racism is illegal. Being belligerent and doing illegal activities (for racist reasons or otherwise) is can get you in trouble. But can I say "I like this race better than another" or "I like this culture better than another" or "I like this religion better than another"? Yes I most certainly can, and there's nothing the law can do about it. Would you honestly have it so that they could?

Racist beliefs and tendencies may be illconceived and even immoral. But illegal? Not really.

"I like this race better than another" is hardly being racist. "You fucking convicts should get back onto your fucking whitey ships and get the fuck off our country" sounds more like it, to use an real example I heard. Perhaps not inherently illegal, if it started a fight, I doubt the person who said that would get off with no charges.

We like to believe we have the right to freedom of speech, but if we can't freely exercise it, it is pointless. Hence I put up that line from The Life of Brian. And yes, we cannot freely exercise our freedom of speech. Unless you do so in the right way, which kills the point of that right anyway. If no one physically stops you from saying whatever you want, scoiety eventually gets you in the form of loss of reputation.

In any case, rights is what this issue is all about. And on that note, I missed your comment about Hobbes earlier. Let me say, I have read Hobbes Leviatan, (in a Euro History course back in high school) and in all my internet debates from then on I came to use the phrase 'Hobbes was a loser' or 'Hobbes was a miserable old man' because of his defeatist perspective on human ability to take care of themselves. John Locke is way cooler.

As someone who has taken a logic class, you should know that you can't merely attack the person and not his argument. Though in this case, it matters not, Locke argued for the same thing as Hobbes, but in a more roundabout way.

Yes you most certainly are. You are arguing that the government should greatly restrict the means with which I choose to protect myself. If it's my house broken into, or my family in danger, I can and will use a gun to defend it because it is the simplest and most efficient form of protection.

And when it comes to that kind of scenario, I would be a moron to choose anything else.

Calling it the simplest and most efficient form of protection implies that there are others ways of doing it. I've mentioned it above, but the problem with using an inherently offensive weapon for defence is that if someone calls your bluff, you'd have to shoot. Do they warrant being shot for infringing your rights. Of course, even if they don't call your bluff specifically, and just attempt to run away and not get caught - would you shoot?

Trespassing on my property (I'm talking breaking into my house) could put anyone in my family in danger. No, I would like to avoid hurting the guy if he's just a robber or something. But just 'restraining' him or her may not be within my power to do. I'm 6' 1'' and 160 lbs. I'm no heavyweight champ, and I could be out muscled by any guy who happens to be bigger than me. How would the average woman restrain a robber (most of whom would be male)? They wouldn't have a chance.

A gun puts them on even footing.

I doubt someone would break in while there are people in there. They usually at least ring the doorbell first. You would have to walk in on the burglar for you to have a chane to point your gun at him, at which point, your family would not be in danger. But the point from above applies here. If he tried to escape, would you shoot?

What is the false construction? Well, you claimed that we all adhere to 'dogmatic' pessimism, and that we think law enforcement was a joke. None of those things were said or implied.

Maybe not you, but at the time, you were yet to reply. The dogmatic comes from not conceding anything, nad the law enforcement was a joke was a common line of arguement from the early posts.

Rather, believing that people are not able or responsible enough to be able to own guns is pessimistic. Thomas Hobbes was the penultimate pessimist, btw.

Pessimism towards other people, or pessimism towards the state? Both Hobbes and Locke took the first and argued for the state. You seem to be taking the second. Either way, pessimism rules.

Aha, appealing to Locke. Not bad. But I would argue that since it is my home that is being trespassed, it is my responsibility to make the judgement on the action that should be taken, as long as it is within the realm of reasonability.

Locke argued the same, at least in the beginning. It is indeed your responsiblity to pass judgement on those who would infringe on your rights. But then he notes that because it was your rights that were infringed, what you would consider to be within "the realm of reasonability", tends to expand by a big margin.

He then goes on to argue that passing unfair punishment on others warrants others passing punishment on you. Which leads to a Hobbesian fall into a state of war. So the formation and intervention of the state in necessary.

You would take that at the cost of having your crime rate be one of the highest in the world?

You're insane. Taking away guns didn't fix anything, you still have an amazingly bad situation. It would be better to let everyone know how to defend themselves, and I wager the gun crime would plummet.

That's great for you, but your morbidly high crime rate is completely unacceptable, and the problem plainly hasn't been solved by removing guns.

I doubt that the migration that Australia is experiencing is the reason, or even the largest contribution, to it having such an incredible crime rate.

Then how would this be an argument for a country like America where the population density is much higher?

How is Australia going to solve this problem, if its population density is lower?

Or stop both simultaneously, rather than vainly trying to solve one with a line of very naive logic.

I would wager that the presence of guns in everyone';s hands is more of a deterrence than removing guns from the ones that will shoot someone in a short and unnatural fit of rage.

I'll deal with all these together, since they're all the same. Correlation isn't causation. Statistics don't tell you the reason for anything. Crime victims in Sydney tend to be English backpackers and Chinese foreign students. The obvious effect of low population density, which you densely missed, is that there are more places where no one else is around and thus perfect for crime. A train station in the middle of Sydney CBD falls under this catergory.

Couple these two together and you can see that guns have little to do with a crime rate. I'd attribute it to lack of awareness, which is why I advocate education as the solution. Introducing guns would not help because the population density means no one would see you being attacked, and you wouldn't have time to get the gun out to defend yourself. However, it does mean that mass shootings would be possible. No advantages and a disadvantage.

On the other hand, in places where the population density is much higher, people would see you being attacked. And either call for help if they're armed with a gun, or help you out if they weren't. Both if they were armed with a knife.

Wait, what?

A knife can kill quickly as well. In fact, one can possibly kill more than one in a short time before anyone notices if they kill correctly.

Note I said "only knives". The guy had a truck. And no, we're not going to ban trucks because they're actually useful. Also note the 4th last paragraph in that article. The boy injured several people in a school stabbing. Not shot and killed. As for the 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs, the guy was mental, he'd go killing with a rope if he had to. And I expect that the 8 he killed was before any teacher saw the man, so a teacher armed with a gun would not have helped. Teachers tend not to supervise the kids much in Japan.

The problem is that you're removing weapons from individuals that can still make the on-the-spot decision to take the situation in a non-violent manner. When everyone is armed with a gun, the people can still do the exact same thing you're thinking of. The difference is that in the situation where there is a fair opening, the criminal can be taken out in a much quicker and efficient manner.

And a situation in which the individuals let him take the money and run is not impossible in a society with guns. He'd just be taken out at the most convenient time, and in a much better fashion than that without.

I find it strange that you mentioned "non-violent" and "taken out" in the same scenario. In a society with guns you have the problem of having to cooridnate without words how you'll deal with the situation. If one blockhead decides to open fire, you'd likely get fatalities. Which is why you argue for proper education on gun use, fair enough. However, there's still the problem of human stupidty, which as you know, has no limits.

And then there's the other problem I've raised with Duff Ostrich. Say the criminal see the guns and tries to escape instead. Would you shoot him?

In any case, what kind of education are you thinking of? You've mentioned Switzerland, but theirs is a compulsory boot camp.

I am familiar enough with the UK's crime system to postulate that the knife crime rose because guns were banned, and therefore firearms were more difficult to obtain.

Sigh. That article said nothing about knife crimes eclipsing gun + knife crimes before the ban. And unless you were familiar enough with the UK where armed with that article, you could claim such a thing, then the gun ban did its job.

I never once argued against the notion of guns being more difficult to obtain in a society where guns are banned. I would be crazy to do such a thing.

If that's the case, then I apologise. I forget who has conceded what point. Perhaps you can help me with Crystal Shards, why seems to be arguing against this fact.

So you would say that it's too difficult for a criminal to get a job as a cop?

You still haven't answered why anything that is provided to the police through the state to keep them from killing people (because crazy people can't be cops, of course) can't be done in the same manner for those that want to buy firearms.

Too difficult? Nothing's impossible. But difficult enough for crime gangs not to try it if they didn't have to, as there's the chance of capture, interrogation and free details about your crime ring.

As for cops going crazy, I thought I did answer it with the point about the state providing psychological support. Do you know how much that costs? For police this is feasible, as they must deal with stressful situations daily. But for the average person, the stress they go through happens intermittently. Psychological support for them would be a waste of money, not to mention that there's simply too many of them.

I am hoping that you are aware that the number of "normal people" vastly outweighs the number of police in America.

If you mean normal in the sense that I meant it, I don't see how it's relevant.

Um...is this like saying that if I buy a bat, I must intend to kill a man with it? Not all guns are even bought with the idea of self defense, and those that are aren't bought with the actual intention to hurt or kill another person. Rather, those that are are bought with the preparedness to defend themselves.

If you buy a bat, I assume you're going to play baseball with it. Guns that are bought with the idea of self defense are but a bluff. They'd need to be prepared to shoot for it to work. One who buys a gun and isn't prepared to shoot is endangering themselves even more, since criminals would treat them as a dangerous target, rather than a harmless one. Also if they were properly educated, I assume they would also be prepared to shoot.

So, are you actually willing to put forth the claim that people in America won't wrestle a criminal to the ground and restrain them?

...What? You think that just because guns are still present, that everyone will automatically be indisposed to kill someone that breaks in their house?

They might. But there will be a tendancy to use the gun. Afterall, why have a gun in the first place if you're not going to use it.

Aside from the total madness of that, why are you even arguing this as a statistic when it would be robberies of a person breaking into another's home? Seriously, how can you even make such an argument?

Because statistics can sing whatever you want them to sing. I would assume that you had an American city vs American city statistic in mind when I brought this up, hence the constant arguments, instead of simply finding another. Finding another means you aren't just making the statistics say what you want the to say. Arguing for the validity of one statistic reeks of it.

And? It would also not be fun to let people that strangle others to death have arms. That doesn't mean that we should remove arms from everyone but select people.

Arms have a practical use. I can't say the same for guns.

Education is the first step to lowering crime by letting others know the correct and proper use of firearms. I would wager that there are more responsible people than criminals, and I very highly doubt that you would disagree with that notion.

I don't like hurting the majority when the minority causes problems. Because the majority can be stronger, and can deal with the minority, if they have the right amount of power. You're not helping people by stopping them from obtaining guns, you're hurting them, because it doesn't equalize the playing field. It's putting an inefficient band-aid over a wound that needs stitches.

I do agree with it. How many responsible people does it take to kill a criminal with a gun? One. But how many does it take to stop a criminal with a gun? Your call.

But seeing as how every man over twenty has a rifle, that's not a problem.

Another moot point as they aren't allowed to carry the gun with them unless they're transporting it to some place that requires its prescence. Owning a rifle and carrying it around with you are different things.

Because in a situation where someone opened fire, the first thing that everyone would do would not be to load their firearms? You think that militarily trained men wouldn't do this out of pure reflex, if nothing else?

Now when in that situation did I say someone opened fire?

Despite the fact that random mass shootings are practically non-existent in societies where everyone is properly educated on the use of firearms?

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Societies where veryone is educated on the use of firearms, I assume are the ones with a compulsory boot camp. They are also probably less individualistic than America, so the connection can't be drawn perfectly.

It wasn't a random knifing to kill him for entertainment. He was stabbed repeatedly and his wallet stolen for money. There was no "Give me your wallet and I'll let you go" situation.

Do note I said uncommon. But a gun would not have helped anyway if it was a quick stabbing, so I'm no longer sure of the relevance of this example.

That's not how it works, if it were that easy then any terrible government would have never taken hold. Just because there isn't a massive riot doesn't make what the government does not an abuse of its power; you'd have to be absolutely out of your mind to make such a statement.

Perhaps it might be best if you provided that examples of abuse of power. I can't imagine the US government having strayed so far from the system of constituitional democracy as to warrant its people to not trust that system anymore. Any abuse of power would not only be the fault of the government, but the fault of the people not stopping them.

How about this situation? Criminal walks into the bank, grabs a hostage, sticks their gun against their head and demands money and hands up. What are you going to do?

If everyone has a gun? Shoot him repeatedly

Can't blame me for misinterpretting

Where does that imply that the criminal shoots the hostage?

And this was more supposed to be a statement of what would occur if he drew a weapon, and indeed was not meant when he had a gun to a hostage's head. Though if an individual were careful enough, they could take care of the situation even while he is holding the hostage.

Just as a gun must be fired if someone calls your bluff which you're using it for defence, I'd be natural to assume that the crimal would shoot the hostage if you call his bluff. Which you seem to realise too, since you didn't mean it to say so. The caveat here is "if an individual were careful enough". People tend to overestimate their abilities, unless trained not to do so and experienced enough. You can train the people, but I'm not sure where you can give them the experience.

What are you talking about? I just asked how you would know if, instead of taking a hostage, the criminal were to indiscriminately kill a few present to instill a sense of fear. It's just as effective --moreso, in fact-- so where are you getting off disarming everyone else to hope that a person that is planning on hurting others already has the decency to spare them?

Now it's my turn. What are you talking about? I just explained why killing being indiscriminantly doesn't work. The sense of fear you want goes away because the criminal just showed that he wasn't going to spare you anyway. Not to mentioned you get the police on your ass a lot faster.

You completely missed the point; the massacre was prevented because someone had a weapon on-hand to stop the person. It took him a few minutes to get the gun, but he saved lives in his action. Had guns been banned, and the man used a knife, the situation would have been the same. The only difference is that now no one would have the proper means by which to fight back.

I got your point. My point was that the shooter wouldn't have had the gun in the first place, had guns been banned. Had the guy used a knife? Well, we have that Japanese example of a school stabbing by a student.

Where is the evidence that they would not have killed if a gun were not there?

Huh? That was evidence for normal people losing it, which you seemed not to agree with. For evidence on how guns can incite a mass shooting, you can look up discriminative stimuli.

Seriously, your argument is so lacking that I am simply amazed. I don't know if I will ever hear another one as ridiculous as this.

I don't, but thanks for another spit in the face Champ.

I attempted to parse this statement and failed.

What the hell are you talking about?

Perhaps if you stopped taking things out of context, it would start making sense to you.

Crystal Shards, Jyosua, Phoenix: Your points have been covered in the discussions with me, duff ostrich and esau of isaac. Feel free to rebut them, but I think this post is long enough as it is for me to repeat the arguments to you.

General Spoon, Vincent: Yeah, I don't think many people here are against banning guns from hunters. It's mainly self defence that's being discussed.

Edited December 1, 2008 by borkborkbork

[Esau of Isaac]

I'll deal with all these together, since they're all the same. Correlation isn't causation. Statistics don't tell you the reason for anything.

Hahaha, if you had had the upper hand with your statistics you wouldn't be trying to bullshit your way out of this.

Correlation does not imply causation, but what I'm spouting isn't a tenuous connection. And basically, if my argument has somehow been rendered null by your ridiculousness, then yours is that much more invalid.

Crime victims in Sydney tend to be English backpackers and Chinese foreign students. The obvious effect of low population density, which you densely missed, is that there are more places where no one else is around and thus perfect for crime. A train station in the middle of Sydney CBD falls under this catergory.

So if I cite another country with a low population density and higher guns per capita with a lower crime, what will this say? I don't deny that Australia has a low population density, but this in no way makes the argument for being capable of owning guns invalid. Like, at all.

Couple these two together and you can see that guns have little to do with a crime rate. I'd attribute it to lack of awareness, which is why I advocate education as the solution. Introducing guns would not help because the population density means no one would see you being attacked, and you wouldn't have time to get the gun out to defend yourself. However, it does mean that mass shootings would be possible. No advantages and a disadvantage.

This doesn't apply to any and all crime situations, and indeed you're not making sense if you're trying to apply this argument based on the fact that you're relying on one of the least densely populated countries on the entire fucking planet.

And you know what? I sure don't see Mongolia rated up there with Australia. Or Namibia. They're both quite sparsely populated, moreso than even Austrlia.

On the other hand, in places where the population density is much higher, people would see you being attacked. And either call for help if they're armed with a gun, or help you out if they weren't. Both if they were armed with a knife.

And help if they had guns and knew how to use them, too.

Not everywhere is Australia, and I don't even find that your argument makes a particularly large amount of sense in the context of a less-densely populated country.

Note I said "only knives". The guy had a truck.

So? Unless you are trying to ban trucks, which you clearly said you're not, then the point is totally moot.

Stop your bullshit. The people weren't killed only because of the truck. Goddamn, learn when you're being ridiculous.

As for the 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs, the guy was mental, he'd go killing with a rope if he had to.

How does that defend your stupid-ass argument that you can't massacre people with a knife?

Clue; it doesn't.

And I expect that the 8 he killed was before any teacher saw the man, so a teacher armed with a gun would not have helped. Teachers tend not to supervise the kids much in Japan.

Way to assume that to support your batshit insane argument.

I find it strange that you mentioned "non-violent" and "taken out" in the same scenario.

...

...Jesus Christ in Heaven.

"...The difference is that in the situation where there is a fair opening, the criminal can be taken out in a much quicker and efficient manner..."

They're in different situations. Learn how to read.

In a society with guns you have the problem of having to cooridnate without words how you'll deal with the situation. If one blockhead decides to open fire, you'd likely get fatalities.

Which is why I support the proper training of firearm use. Seriously, how is this not getting through? You can have the same argument with someone try and attack a guy with a knife.

Which is why you argue for proper education on gun use, fair enough. However, there's still the problem of human stupidty, which as you know, has no limits.

And if you're getting rid of things because some people are stupid, then I think you should probably stop posting. Your plan doesn't deal with stupidity in any way, so you have no ground to pull that card.

And then there's the other problem I've raised with Duff Ostrich. Say the criminal see the guns and tries to escape instead. Would you shoot him?

Would I? Probably not, unless I am sure I could get a good shot in.

In any case, what kind of education are you thinking of? You've mentioned Switzerland, but theirs is a compulsory boot camp.

I find that that is something that should be hammered out over time, but a sort of mandatory gun education course for those wanting to purchase firearms utilized in some areas would be helpful, I think.

Too difficult? Nothing's impossible. But difficult enough for crime gangs not to try it if they didn't have to, as there's the chance of capture, interrogation and free details about your crime ring.

As if there isn't the chance if they go through other means?

The point is that handing it all over to the state doesn't mean that the state can't have criminals either. Or what about when the state itself is the problem?

As for cops going crazy, I thought I did answer it with the point about the state providing psychological support. Do you know how much that costs? For police this is feasible, as they must deal with stressful situations daily. But for the average person, the stress they go through happens intermittently. Psychological support for them would be a waste of money, not to mention that there's simply too many of them.

And everyone that owns a gun isn't going to be in need of the state providing psychological support.

...Or are you really trying to say that people can't receive psychological support on their own?

If you mean normal in the sense that I meant it, I don't see how it's relevant.

Because if criminals are a minor fraction of the total populace, then they'll be an even smaller fucking fraction of the police force, since the number of total police is minor compared to the total population of most given nations.

Get it?

If you buy a bat, I assume you're going to play baseball with it.

But you won't assume the man that buys a gun will just want to have it for collective purposes, or use it for recreational shooting or hunting?

Guns that are bought with the idea of self defense are but a bluff.

...What?

They'd need to be prepared to shoot for it to work. One who buys a gun and isn't prepared to shoot is endangering themselves even more, since criminals would treat them as a dangerous target, rather than a harmless one. Also if they were properly educated, I assume they would also be prepared to shoot.

Let me try to take this slowly, because you are seriously starting to piss me off.

When people buy a gun for the purpose of self-defense, they do not necessarily buy it with the desire to hurt and kill another person. They buy it intending to protect themselves if the issue comes to it.

They might. But there will be a tendancy to use the gun. Afterall, why have a gun in the first place if you're not going to use it.

For the same reason that you might have anything without using it?

Stop treating gun owners like they intend to shoot someone. It's a spit in the face and insulting.

Because statistics can sing whatever you want them to sing. I would assume that you had an American city vs American city statistic in mind when I brought this up, hence the constant arguments, instead of simply finding another.

I did find another. It was used above. But I'm arguing against the stupid-ass notion that I can't use an American city versus another. And I assume that's because in similar arguments you've had your arguments eviscerated by someone that used such effective and informative statistics, so you decided to try and make up bullshit to keep another from showing others how extraordinarily stupid your argument is.

Finding another means you aren't just making the statistics say what you want the to say. Arguing for the validity of one statistic reeks of it.

I'm not arguing for one statistic only, and indeed utilized entire nations when asked; so on that issue, I'll have to give a nice hearty "fuck you".

I'm questioning you on your retarded determination to stop any citing of state statistics. "Hurr, society isn't used to guns being gone".

Your argument is senseless.

Arms have a practical use. I can't say the same for guns.

You can't, because you don't give a shit about guns. But thankfully enough, you're not everyone else.

I do agree with it. How many responsible people does it take to kill a criminal with a gun? One. But how many does it take to stop a criminal with a gun? Your call.

...What? Seriously, what?

Another moot point as they aren't allowed to carry the gun with them unless they're transporting it to some place that requires its prescence. Owning a rifle and carrying it around with you are different things.

This only applies to some cantons, around half of them to my knowledge, and for those it is rare that the individual can't carry it around with them. When they are more strict, it's still quite possible to carry them on your person; you just often need to get a permit.

Now when in that situation did I say someone opened fire?

The point is that everyone that has a weapon has months of military training; arguing that they might fuck up or freeze is just trying to be unrealistic to support your zany arguments. The fact that you try to argue that someone can't load a clip in their pocket to a gun in time to stop a gunman is so damned ridiculous and without merit that I don't even understand how you could have thought it was a good idea to put forth.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Societies where veryone is educated on the use of firearms, I assume are the ones with a compulsory boot camp. They are also probably less individualistic than America, so the connection can't be drawn perfectly.

I never argued for the exact same system of Switzerland; I argued that proper training and education of firearm use would raise effectiveness of common ownership of weapons in society.

Do note I said uncommon. But a gun would not have helped anyway if it was a quick stabbing, so I'm no longer sure of the relevance of this example.

He wasn't the only one there, if you're arguing that the presence of a firearm could not have altered the situation. The point is that knives aren't somehow going to change the situation at all.

Perhaps it might be best if you provided that examples of abuse of power.

For the USA? Or your particular government?

I can't imagine the US government having strayed so far from the system of constituitional democracy as to warrant its people to not trust that system anymore. Any abuse of power would not only be the fault of the government, but the fault of the people not stopping them.

This doesn't in any way amount to the government being fair in abusing its power, and not all situations are just as simple as everyone being stupid; if you'll recall, the oft-referenced Hitler (yeah, Godwining the topic) was elected through the people.

I'll address the rest later.

[Fox]

Take guns away from the civilians. Awesome. Now the general public can't get ahold of weapons, and crime rates will plummet. Except, it's funny how criminals have this knack for owning contraband weapons anyway. So now you're in a situation where the criminals are still armed and you've left the general public defenseless.

[Liz]

and this whole "you shouldn't distrust the government" thing is pure bull crap.

its because people DISTRUST the government that the government is forced to do a good job. people in the government know that people will be looking for anything that will hint at the abuse of power, so they are forced, in a way, to do a good job or risk rebellion from the people. if people do not distrust the government, the government pretty much has a free passage to become despot and ignore the will of the people, and once the people will want to do something about it, it will be too late.

its only because of the people's distrust in the government that a republican system such as our own can even function.

its a fundamental idea of republicanism, and the framers of the constitution understood it. so please, before making any arguments dealing with government, do your research first, especially primary sources since those tend to be very enlightening.

and this point leads to another more important point.

if people have no access to guns, how will people defend their rights and fight to change the government if the government ever becomes corrupt? without guns, we will only be able to sit and watch as the people in power do whatever they wish to do, with absolutely no say in matters. that is why the second amendment was even put in the Bill of Rights. It was placed there to put the people of the US in peace, knowing that if the need would ever arise, they could defend their rights by going to war against the government if necessary.

[Esau of Isaac]

Can't blame me for misinterpretting

I can blame you for carrying it on repeatedly, though, after I told you you were wrong.

Just as a gun must be fired if someone calls your bluff which you're using it for defence, I'd be natural to assume that the crimal would shoot the hostage if you call his bluff. Which you seem to realise too, since you didn't mean it to say so. The caveat here is "if an individual were careful enough". People tend to overestimate their abilities, unless trained not to do so and experienced enough. You can train the people, but I'm not sure where you can give them the experience.

Training them with firearms and educating them in their use is all that needs to be done. They don't need education in bank robberies to be capable of dealing with a situation in a more efficient manner.

The same exact thing could be said of a criminal with a knife. The only difference is that no one has the sufficient power this criminal has access to to stop him from taking a hostage, or hurting another if he wishes.

Now it's my turn. What are you talking about? blink.gif I just explained why killing being indiscriminantly doesn't work. The sense of fear you want goes away because the criminal just showed that he wasn't going to spare you anyway. Not to mentioned you get the police on your ass a lot faster.

You explained nowhere how killing indiscriminately doesn't work; it can work quite well. At no point does killing one random person make everyone feel that the person won't spare them, and it doesn't stop them from cowering and listening to the person's demands. In fact, it is an effective use of force to show that if you don't listen to exactly what they say, they will kill you.

I got your point. My point was that the shooter wouldn't have had the gun in the first place, had guns been banned. Had the guy used a knife? Well, we have that Japanese example of a school stabbing by a student.

In which there were more people dead?

How was that a defense on your part?

Huh? That was evidence for normal people losing it, which you seemed not to agree with. For evidence on how guns can incite a mass shooting, you can look up discriminative stimuli.

I'm saying that citing the fact that some people have bouts of anger and kill others with guns is not reason to ban guns, because that does not stop them from going on a rampage with any other deadly tool.

Perhaps if you stopped taking things out of context, it would start making sense to you.

I have been taking them completely in context; they're just ridiculous, baseless, and centered around the naive notion that guns are the problem, and not the people that get the guns.

[Phoenix]

Don't take away people's guns! That won't solve the problem. Take away their minds!

[borkborkbork]

Correlation does not imply causation, but what I'm spouting isn't a tenuous connection. And basically, if my argument has somehow been rendered null by your ridiculousness, then yours is that much more invalid.

Oh? And how do you know that it's not a tenous connection?

So if I cite another country with a low population density and higher guns per capita with a lower crime, what will this say? I don't deny that Australia has a low population density, but this in no way makes the argument for being capable of owning guns invalid. Like, at all.

It basically goes like this: There are too many confounding factors to be able to draw a connection between gun ownership rate, and total crime rate. I've named population density and touched on low awareness. However, a connection should be able to be drawn between gun ownership and gun related deaths, where the confounding factors are limited to..er...

Clipping the rest as you have a silly habit of splitting what should be one point into several, then refuting each thing by itself, completely missing the whole.

So? Unless you are trying to ban trucks, which you clearly said you're not, then the point is totally moot.

Stop your bullshit. The people weren't killed only because of the truck. Goddamn, learn when you're being ridiculous.

How does that defend your stupid-ass argument that you can't massacre people with a knife?

I believe the words I used were "not normally possible" and "only knives", or at least something to that effect. Do the people that go mass shooting in America have to drive a truck into the crowd before killing them? And if you think driving a truck into the crowd at Akihabara won't have an effect on people's ability to get away, boy are you not thinking.

As for the mental patient guy, I suppose it shows it is possible, but what I was getting at is that I doubt he even thought about how he'd do it. But then bring in the other case where the knifer injured two and killed none, and you can conclude that any pure knifing massacre where 8 are killed was a strange case.

"...The difference is that in the situation where there is a fair opening, the criminal can be taken out in a much quicker and efficient manner..."

They're in different situations. Learn how to read.

Perhaps you should quote the whole paragraph

The problem is that you're removing weapons from individuals that can still make the on-the-spot decision to take the situation in a non-violent manner. When everyone is armed with a gun, the people can still do the exact same thing you're thinking of. The difference is that in the situation where there is a fair opening, the criminal can be taken out in a much quicker and efficient manner.

I assume "removing weapons" refers to guns, as the thread is about guns. I assume the "non-violent manner" you speak of involves said weapons, as you would not have mentioned them in the same sentence if they were not related. Since you mention "difference" I assume you are drawing a comparison, then either the conditions, or the solution would be similar. Otherwise, you would have no grounds for drawing such a comparison. Finally, since the conditions are different, then the solutions would be similar, in this case, non-violent and taking out. That's my logic, which part was off?

Which is why I support the proper training of firearm use. Seriously, how is this not getting through? You can have the same argument with someone try and attack a guy with a knife.

And if you're getting rid of things because some people are stupid, then I think you should probably stop posting. Your plan doesn't deal with stupidity in any way, so you have no ground to pull that card.

It's because you haven't suggested any details about your proper training. "We'll hammer the details out later" reeks of a politician's rhetoric. A cure-all for any situation, since you can modify it to fit the arguement.

Would I? Probably not, unless I am sure I could get a good shot in.

Before I take this point, would you care to define "good shot". I would normally take that to mean being able to hit them. But since it's you, it could very well mean "able to hit their leg in a not fatal area, and then performing first aid to stop them from dying from blood loss before the ambulance arrives".

I find that that is something that should be hammered out over time, but a sort of mandatory gun education course for those wanting to purchase firearms utilized in some areas would be helpful, I think.

Well, we have a detail here, at least. Education courses, at least the short terms ones, are pointless. I hold a Responsible Service of Alcohol license, after taking the education course. The only thing I still remember from that is "Don't jump the bar to calm a drunken brawl - you'll get stabbed in the eye with a pool stick".

As if there isn't the chance if they go through other means?

The point is that handing it all over to the state doesn't mean that the state can't have criminals either. Or what about when the state itself is the problem?

What? I didn't even get 3/4 of that. At the risk of it being out of context, when the state itself is the problem, we're in a communist state.

And everyone that owns a gun isn't going to be in need of the state providing psychological support.

...Or are you really trying to say that people can't receive psychological support on their own?

Here you go again, taking things out of context. Police are given psychological support whether they need it or not. And especially regardless of whether they feel the need for it. Every police won't need it, but it ensures that the ones that need it will get it.

Because if criminals are a minor fraction of the total populace, then they'll be an even smaller fucking fraction of the police force, since the number of total police is minor compared to the total population of most given nations.

I can now only assume you meant that my drawing the comparison between the number of "cops going crazy" and "normal Americans going crazy" was an unfair one. If that's the case, you should have just said so, instead of whatever rant that was up there. But the comparison was made in reference to the statement that you "police yourselves", which is why decided to draw the comparison.

When people buy a gun for the purpose of self-defense, they do not necessarily buy it with the desire to hurt and kill another person. They buy it intending to protect themselves if the issue comes to it.

It must be bought with the preparedness to harm then. I didn't say desite though, I said intention. All sophistry, all the same in the end. The end being that when it does come to protect yourself, you would have to point that gun at someone. And shoot if they continue.

I did find another. It was used above. But I'm arguing against the stupid-ass notion that I can't use an American city versus another. And I assume that's because in similar arguments you've had your arguments eviscerated by someone that used such effective and informative statistics, so you decided to try and make up bullshit to keep another from showing others how extraordinarily stupid your argument is.

Actually no. But if you want to call your statistics "effective and informative", give me the p values and then I'll accept them. Unfortunately, working out p values for such statistics is impossible and thus they are as effective at informing as they are at misleading.

This only applies to some cantons, around half of them to my knowledge, and for those it is rare that the individual can't carry it around with them. When they are more strict, it's still quite possible to carry them on your person; you just often need to get a permit.

I assume getting a permit also includes providing them with a reason. Is self-defense allowed as a reason?

He wasn't the only one there, if you're arguing that the presence of a firearm could not have altered the situation. The point is that knives aren't somehow going to change the situation at all.

And are you arguing that the presence of a firearm would have altered the situation? If not, I fail to see the significance of it. And that second sentence has even less significance. When did we start talking about knives changing situations?

For the USA? Or your particular government?

If you can name one for Australia, go ahead. I can only think of one (conscription), during WWII. The nation was divided over this issue, to a point where I don't remember anyone taking it up to the High Court, which exists outside both government and existing law.

This doesn't in any way amount to the government being fair in abusing its power, and not all situations are just as simple as everyone being stupid; if you'll recall, the oft-referenced Hitler (yeah, Godwining the topic) was elected through the people.

Nazi Germany was turned into a facist state during that string of power abuse, not a constitutional democracy like we're talking about here.

I can blame you for carrying it on repeatedly, though, after I told you you were wrong.

You did not say why though, except "I didn't say that", which conflicted with what I had in front of me.

The same exact thing could be said of a criminal with a knife. The only difference is that no one has the sufficient power this criminal has access to to stop him from taking a hostage, or hurting another if he wishes.

Actually, someone else could carry a knife like the criminal does. Hell, I've got a knife on me every now and again. It's all moot though, as it's in these situations when the police have a bigger chance of getting there in time. Not to mention there will be fingerprints and DNA tracks all over the hostage/victim in the case of a knife.

You explained nowhere how killing indiscriminately doesn't work; it can work quite well. At no point does killing one random person make everyone feel that the person won't spare them, and it doesn't stop them from cowering and listening to the person's demands. In fact, it is an effective use of force to show that if you don't listen to exactly what they say, they will kill you.

Walking in and randomly killing someone tells people you're more interested in blood than anything else. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing, but the first thing I'd do if someone did that would be to run and hide. It might be different if they announced their intentions first, then shot someone, but if you annouce your intentioned first, everyone's already frozen. Thing don't need a show of force, unless anyone's planning on fighting back. I've mentioned it before, but it also complicates things for them while trying to get away from law enforcement.

In which there were more people dead?

How was that a defense on your part?

How about the more similar case of the 16 year old going on a mass stabbing. The shootings you're comparing it to are by teenagers, not grown men. If you wanted to compare it to grown men, take Virginia Tech. 32 dead compared to that 8.

I'm saying that citing the fact that some people have bouts of anger and kill others with guns is not reason to ban guns, because that does not stop them from going on a rampage with any other deadly tool.

This arguement will divert into the one above it, but and deadly tool that is less deadly than a gun is still some people saved.

I have been taking them completely in context; they're just ridiculous, baseless, and centered around the naive notion that guns are the problem, and not the people that get the guns.

And I suppose your education course fixes the problem of people? I'm not sure what the legal age of gun ownership is, but anything over 4 would make your education course meaningless for that purpose.

I've clipped quite a bit that either reroutes to an existing arguement, or is based too much on your education course, since I need more details on that.

and this whole "you shouldn't distrust the government" thing is pure bull crap.

No, we scrutinise the government as if they were not trustworthy. We do not actively distrust them. If that were so, the country would get nothing done.

I'll give you an example. In this current economic crisis, the Australian government has actively told us that we are in no danger of falling into deep recession. If we were not to trust them, we'd quickly liquidate any asset not nailed down. And in doing so, stocks will plummet, the country will fall into recession.

We're not in recession.

if people have no access to guns, how will people defend their rights and fight to change the government if the government ever becomes corrupt?

Violence isn't the answer to everything. The government relies on its people to be productive in order to survive. Passive resistance is all that is needed.

Edited December 6, 2008 by borkborkbork

[Higgins Von Higgings]

I personally doubt removing legal guns won't mean that people still won't get them some way.. such as the black market. It only means that your average Joe won't have one to defend his family if this happens.

I'll admit there's a lot of violence that guns can cause, but there's a lot of it they prevent and stop.

Our fore fathers might not have predicted the guns such as the AK-47, but the fact that they allowed it was a much better idea than if they tried to remove that right.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Higgins Von Higgings

[Esau of Isaac]

Oh? And how do you know that it's not a tenous connection?

I believe I'll counter with "And what of your view? How do you know your point is not a tenuous connection?"

It basically goes like this: There are too many confounding factors to be able to draw a connection between gun ownership rate, and total crime rate. I've named population density and touched on low awareness. However, a connection should be able to be drawn between gun ownership and gun related deaths, where the confounding factors are limited to..er...

Of course gun-related deaths will go down if you ban guns; I've never argued against that point.

I believe the words I used were "not normally possible" and "only knives", or at least something to that effect.

He would have been totally capable of massacring others without the fucking truck.

Are you going to force me to hunt down another knife massacre to show you that you can do it with ONLY knives? Seriously?

Do the people that go mass shooting in America have to drive a truck into the crowd before killing them?

Do people that go on massive knife crime have to?

Last I checked, they don't.

And if you think driving a truck into the crowd at Akihabara won't have an effect on people's ability to get away, boy are you not thinking.

You're right, his truck was so Goddamn big it blocked off every exit.

As for the mental patient guy, I suppose it shows it is possible, but what I was getting at is that I doubt he even thought about how he'd do it.

I don't care about what you think, because you've shown nothing to substantiate that thought.

And it's completely irrelevant, since the point was to show that it's quite possible to massacre others with a knife.

But then bring in the other case where the knifer injured two and killed none, and you can conclude that any pure knifing massacre where 8 are killed was a strange case.

And a gun massacre where several are killed is a pretty strange case as well.

I assume "removing weapons" refers to guns, as the thread is about guns. I assume the "non-violent manner" you speak of involves said weapons, as you would not have mentioned them in the same sentence if they were not related. Since you mention "difference" I assume you are drawing a comparison, then either the conditions, or the solution would be similar. Otherwise, you would have no grounds for drawing such a comparison. Finally, since the conditions are different, then the solutions would be similar, in this case, non-violent and taking out. That's my logic, which part was off?

Let me try to take this very slow for you.

The point was to show that even if the populace is armed with weaponry, they can still assess a situation and solve it in a non-violent manner, the same as if you were to remove it. If a criminal takes a hostage, the individuals at the area can make the better call between the two, and solve it in the same exact way you could if guns were removed from the populace. However, in addition, they also have the capability to disarm the criminal if a good opportunity presents itself.

God help you if you misread my statement again.

It's because you haven't suggested any details about your proper training. "We'll hammer the details out later" reeks of a politician's rhetoric. A cure-all for any situation, since you can modify it to fit the arguement.

It has to do with the fact that I am not for simply throwing out a plan out there that would be fucking dumb. But I do know that simple firearm training can serve to a better extent than removing them entirely.

And I did in fact elucidate upon my ideas, so no, I didn't just posit it as though it's an instant cure-all.

Before I take this point, would you care to define "good shot". I would normally take that to mean being able to hit them. But since it's you, it could very well mean "able to hit their leg in a not fatal area, and then performing first aid to stop them from dying from blood loss before the ambulance arrives".

Good shot, as in I am sure that I would hit them and nothing else, or at least that I have a reasonably good chance of doing so.

I'm not going to aim for their legs unless I'm sure I can hit their legs.

Well, we have a detail here, at least. Education courses, at least the short terms ones, are pointless. I hold a Responsible Service of Alcohol license, after taking the education course. The only thing I still remember from that is "Don't jump the bar to calm a drunken brawl - you'll get stabbed in the eye with a pool stick".

At what point did I endorse education that doesn't, you know, educate?

What? I didn't even get 3/4 of that.

HANDING OVER ALL POWER TO THE STATE DOESN'T MAKE CRIMINALS GO AWAY. ARE YOU GETTING IT NOW?

At the risk of it being out of context, when the state itself is the problem, we're in a communist state.

Because only communist states are problems.

Jesus Harold Christ.

Here you go again, taking things out of context. Police are given psychological support whether they need it or not. And especially regardless of whether they feel the need for it. Every police won't need it, but it ensures that the ones that need it will get it.

Actually, could you outline where it's required whether they need it or not?

I can now only assume you meant that my drawing the comparison between the number of "cops going crazy" and "normal Americans going crazy" was an unfair one. If that's the case, you should have just said so, instead of whatever rant that was up there.

I did say so, and in very clear terms.

But the comparison was made in reference to the statement that you "police yourselves", which is why decided to draw the comparison.

It was made after you attempted to state that kills by police are less than those by "normal people", and it was in fact not an actual response as to why the people cannot normally police themselves.

It must be bought with the preparedness to harm then.

Even then, not necessarily. I may buy a gun to shoot only non-living targets or for collection purposes.

I didn't say desite though, I said intention. All sophistry, all the same in the end. The end being that when it does come to protect yourself, you would have to point that gun at someone. And shoot if they continue.

Even were this point true (which it's not), what is your point?

Actually no. But if you want to call your statistics "effective and informative", give me the p values and then I'll accept them. Unfortunately, working out p values for such statistics is impossible and thus they are as effective at informing as they are at misleading.

No you won't, because the statistics don't conform to your silly views. That's why you tried to stop me from being capable of using them in the first place.

I assume getting a permit also includes providing them with a reason. Is self-defense allowed as a reason?

Very much so. There are extensive background checks required, but getting a permit to own and carry a weapon is not extremely difficult.

And are you arguing that the presence of a firearm would have altered the situation?

Yes, I am.

If not, I fail to see the significance of it. And that second sentence has even less significance. When did we start talking about knives changing situations?

When you decided that banning guns is great.

If you can name one for Australia, go ahead. I can only think of one (conscription), during WWII. The nation was divided over this issue, to a point where I don't remember anyone taking it up to the High Court, which exists outside both government and existing law.

I am not well versed on Australian history. I could look for situations in which your government has abused its power, however.

Nazi Germany was turned into a facist state during that string of power abuse, not a constitutional democracy like we're talking about here.

Irrelevant. The point is that people can elect individuals they believe will do good that instead abuse their power. And I don't see why this requires me to have to read around about to show you with your own country.

You did not say why though, except "I didn't say that", which conflicted with what I had in front of me.

And you continued it after I clarified it for you.

Actually, someone else could carry a knife like the criminal does.

You mean, like...how others can carry guns to stop irresponsible gunmen?!

Hell, I've got a knife on me every now and again. It's all moot though, as it's in these situations when the police have a bigger chance of getting there in time. Not to mention there will be fingerprints and DNA tracks all over the hostage/victim in the case of a knife.

It's entirely relevant. The people shouldn't have to rely on the state for each and every situation. The state is there to help the people, but the people aren't there to just be babied by the state in every single situation.

Walking in and randomly killing someone tells people you're more interested in blood than anything else.

Shooting a random person and yelling "GET ON THE FLOOR OR YOU'LL DIE TOO" seems it would work sufficiently enough to me.

How about the more similar case of the 16 year old going on a mass stabbing. The shootings you're comparing it to are by teenagers, not grown men. If you wanted to compare it to grown men, take Virginia Tech. 32 dead compared to that 8.

Because they were in different areas, not because they were done by a grown man.

I can't compare to shootings by teenagers, now? Only adults? And what of the shootings by grown men that have a lower death toll?

This arguement will divert into the one above it, but and deadly tool that is less deadly than a gun is still some people saved.

Well, I propose we ban knives. They may have other uses, but if one life is saved HURR HURR

And I suppose your education course fixes the problem of people? I'm not sure what the legal age of gun ownership is, but anything over 4 would make your education course meaningless for that purpose.

No, I don't think it would intrinsically fix every problem. But I think that mandatory gun education for everyone that wants a firearm would be a much better step than your own inane solution.

[Phoenix]

Our fore fathers might not have predicted the guns such as the AK-47, but the fact that they allowed it was a much better idea than if they tried to remove that right.

The AK series? You know what the fore fathers didn't predict? 50.cals! Those'll make your head burst like a water mellon. One shot one kill has a whole new f*cked up meaning nowdays.

[California Mountain Snake]

Phoenix everyday you're changing my world in ways I never could have imagined.

One of the few things that remains clear is that a quote war is still the most boring and ineffective way to debate a topic that has ever been invented.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Black Knight

[ZephyrD]

I wrote up some semi-long post and decided to scrap it cause I'm not exactly looking to offend anyone, and hey, I'm also Canadian, and I actually feel safer when there are no firearms nearby, regardless of the owner. I honestly think some people are being outright rude, immature and hostile in this thread, even to people who make perfectly valid points, which isn't uncommon when it comes down to things that a lot of people hold as one of their rights.

My opinion? Like stated there's too many factors to outright say, more guns = more crime, I'm inclined to agree with that. But I'd rather live in the UK, Australia or remain in Canada weaponless than live in America with a firearm. I don't see safety in the fact that I own a weapon, I'd rather have fewer guns owned by other people and crimes being committed less by other people.

The idea that a gun = safety to me, is a ridiculous idea and obviously something is wrong if you fear other people's guns enough to feel you need one yourself. Maybe safety isn't the issue here, but I see few other reasons to possess a weapon aside from hunting or defense. I don't think hunting is the issue here.

Does banning guns remove the problem? No. Does it reduce it? Yes, not everyone is willing to pay a lot of money for illegal weapons. Organised crime, people a bit out of their mind with money, they'll still get their weapons. The former's weapons would likely be illegal regardless. Normal people who do something quickly without thinking and regret it later, they're less likely to do something stupid since it's harder, more time consuming to do.

Honestly? Some people see owning guns as a right. I don't see why people hold onto such a right anymore. Almost seems like some people hold onto it, just because they can. (Similar to how many people put communism into a negative light when they typically don't even know what it is, or they fail to understand why it doesn't work, but that's another story.)

I don't see owning a gun being much of a defense tool. Just my opinion, but I fail to see how people owning more guns increases safety as opposed to guns being harder to obtain.

I would never hesitate to defend someone I care about with any amount of force needed, I just see fewer guns lowering the chances that I'd have to defend someone, rather than owning a gun being more likely to protect.

But yeah, just my opinion.

Edited December 7, 2008 by ZephyrShakuraus

[borkborkbork]

I believe I'll counter with "And what of your view? How do you know your point is not a tenuous connection?"

Because:

Of course gun-related deaths will go down if you ban guns; I've never argued against that point.

Confounding factors are few enough to draw the conclusion. They're few enough when no one can name any, or the ones that are named are rationally deemed minor.

He would have been totally capable of massacring others without the fucking truck.

You're right, his truck was so Goddamn big it blocked off every exit.

Police concluded it was at 12:33 p.m. when he hit five people with the truck; he had ignored a red light earlier. As some people gathered to care for the victims, He then left the truck and stabbed at least 12 people...

Are you going to force me to hunt down another knife massacre to show you that you can do it with ONLY knives? Seriously?

And a gun massacre where several are killed is a pretty strange case as well

Well, I've conceded it was possible already, so you can go look up every single knife massacre, look at their death tolls, then compare it the death tolls in all gun massacres. You're arguing this as if you're sure the former is greater than the latter, which I'm sure you have effective and informative statistics for.

It has to do with the fact that I am not for simply throwing out a plan out there that would be fucking dumb. But I do know that simple firearm training can serve to a better extent than removing them entirely. And I did in fact elucidate upon my ideas, so no, I didn't just posit it as though it's an instant cure-all.

3 things here. Why is it fucking dumb? And why do you think simple firearm training will serve better? Would you care to repost it since I can't seem to find any lucid details.

Good shot, as in I am sure that I would hit them and nothing else, or at least that I have a reasonably good chance of doing so.

So you don't believe in capital punishment, but would be willing shoot a fleeing criminal if you knew you would hit? Point here being that's another lost life because the general populace has guns.

At what point did I endorse education that doesn't, you know, educate?

Tell me when you find an education course where everyone pays full attention.

HANDING OVER ALL POWER TO THE STATE DOESN'T MAKE CRIMINALS GO AWAY. ARE YOU GETTING IT NOW?

HANDING POWER OVER THE THE GENERAL MASSES DOESN'T EITHER. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Because only communist states are problems.

Facist too. And non-constitutional monarchy. Not democracy. The only problem there is inefficiency.

Actually, could you outline where it's required whether they need it or not?

I can't seem to find the article on the net. Closest I can get is this. Those dealing with stressful situations are checked constantly, while the police theselves are trained to look for signs of mental illness, and shove their mates in immedately when they see it.

It was made after you attempted to state that kills by police are less than those by "normal people", and it was in fact not an actual response as to why the people cannot normally police themselves.

No, it was made after I said the number of police gone psycho was less than the normal people gone psycho.

Even then, not necessarily. I may buy a gun to shoot only non-living targets or for collection purposes.

When people buy a gun for the purpose of self-defense...

Even were this point true (which it's not), what is your point?

Reroutes to the point above where you shoot the fleeing criminal.

No you won't, because the statistics don't conform to your silly views. That's why you tried to stop me from being capable of using them in the first place.

Yes I will, because statistically and practically significant statistics are ones I cannot ignore. You can use nonsignificant statistics all you like, but if they're not significant, they're open to interpretation.

Very much so. There are extensive background checks required, but getting a permit to own and carry a weapon is not extremely difficult.

I hope by extremely difficult, you imply that there is a degree of difficulty in them. Thus we have a case of lower gun availibility on the streets, and low crime. Hmm...

Yes, I am.

Since you seem to think yourself very clear, I wonder why this wasn't elaborated on. How about why you think so? I've given my views on why I don't.

I am not well versed on Australian history. I could look for situations in which your government has abused its power, however.

Irrelevant. The point is that people can elect individuals they believe will do good that instead abuse their power. And I don't see why this requires me to have to read around about to show you with your own country.

I never said you had to use Australia, you suggested it yourself. Though I doubt you'd find anything substantial if you looked anyway. Also, yes the people can elect bad politicians, but they have the right to take him back down. It seems to me they decided not to take him down even during the conversion to fascism. After that they lost the right to take him down.

Democracy's power comes from the people. Abusing power would mean abusing the people. If the people themselves don't find it abuse, who can say it was?

You mean, like...how others can carry guns to stop irresponsible gunmen?!

Point? Try to be clear.

It's entirely relevant. The people shouldn't have to rely on the state for each and every situation. The state is there to help the people, but the people aren't there to just be babied by the state in every single situation.

Not every crime is an armed one. We do have the right of citizen's arrest, the state just doesn't encourage it, unless you contact the police first, then try to stall the situation with it until they arrive. I don't see how that's babying.

Well, I propose we ban knives. They may have other uses, but if one life is saved HURR HURR

More will die from starvation/malnutrition after we're left with trying to eat meat with safety scissors.

No, I don't think it would intrinsically fix every problem. But I think that mandatory gun education for everyone that wants a firearm would be a much better step than your own inane solution.

It's probably about time for you to substantiate that claim.

One of the few things that remains clear is that a quote war is still the most boring and ineffective way to debate a topic that has ever been invented.

Likely. Unfortunately, I'm yet to see another.

@Zephr: rude, hostile, immature? How could you say such a thing :P

[Esau of Isaac]

Confounding factors are few enough to draw the conclusion. They're few enough when no one can name any, or the ones that are named are rationally deemed minor.

I'm missing the point; was your entire argument over these several pages that gun crime would go down if guns were banned?

Well, I've conceded it was possible already, so you can go look up every single knife massacre, look at their death tolls, then compare it the death tolls in all gun massacres. You're arguing this as if you're sure the former is greater than the latter, which I'm sure you have effective and informative statistics for.

No, I'm not arguing it like the former is intrinsically greater than the latter; I'm dispelling the stupid fucking notion you attempted to put forth that knife massacred were impossible.

3 things here. Why is it fucking dumb?

Throwing something out there that I wouldn't have thought through? How wouldn't that be fucking dumb?

And why do you think simple firearm training will serve better?

Because it offers a better trained society that is more acquainted with how to properly defend themselves and others, and leads to situations in which individuals can react appropriately in a given situation when the need for self defense arises.

Would you care to repost it since I can't seem to find any lucid details.

Repost what?

So you don't believe in capital punishment, but would be willing shoot a fleeing criminal if you knew you would hit?

Is there something wrong with stopping a criminal from getting away when they've already broken the law?

If you think that my disagreeing with capital punishment is contradictory to stopping a man that intended to hurt others by breaking the law, then you're an utter moron.

Point here being that's another lost life because the general populace has guns.

Of course if the life was lost it would be because the man had broken the law and could have very easily hurt others.

I have empathy, but it only goes so far, and arguing that a system is flawed because it has to at times eliminate criminals is simply pathetic. I mean, fuck, I've been called a bleeding heart liberal, but you're being insane.

Tell me when you find an education course where everyone pays full attention.

So gun training shouldn't exist, because some people don't pay attention. I think this is what you are trying to convey?

I'm sorry, I just have a hard time grasping that you'd make such an inane defense. It seriously makes no sense whatsoever.

HANDING POWER OVER THE THE GENERAL MASSES DOESN'T EITHER. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

THAT IF THE GENERAL MASSES ARE PROPERLY EQUIPPED AND KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THEY COULD POLICE THEMSELVES MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN THE GOVERNMENT.

I can't seem to find the article on the net. Closest I can get is this. Those dealing with stressful situations are checked constantly, while the police theselves are trained to look for signs of mental illness, and shove their mates in immedately when they see it.

Can you continue looking? Because I've certainly found nothing. At least for the States.

No, it was made after I said the number of police gone psycho was less than the normal people gone psycho.

AND THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PEOPLE BEING INCAPABLE OF POLICING THEMSELVES SEE?

Yes I will, because statistically and practically significant statistics are ones I cannot ignore.

Which state statistics aren't somehow?

You can use nonsignificant statistics all you like, but if they're not significant, they're open to interpretation.

I'd like to know why it would be insignificant.

I hope by extremely difficult, you imply that there is a degree of difficulty in them. Thus we have a case of lower gun availibility on the streets, and low crime. Hmm...

I think you missed the "not" there Champ. It's not extremely difficult. And if you think that there is a case of lower gun availability in Switzerland then you're fucking insane.

Since you seem to think yourself very clear, I wonder why this wasn't elaborated on.

Because it wasn't relevant when the point was made.

How about why you think so? I've given my views on why I don't.

Because if the individual that witnessed the crime had had a weapon, they might have been capable of stopping him from being stabbed.

Is this really difficult for you to grasp?

I never said you had to use Australia, you suggested it yourself.

Earlier you had said something to the effect that you were not an Australian, so I assumed you were part of a country's history I was better versed in.

Also, yes the people can elect bad politicians, but they have the right to take him back down. It seems to me they decided not to take him down even during the conversion to fascism. After that they lost the right to take him down.

The point is that abuse of power can come through any form of government, no matter what it is. Why this even needs debating over, I don't know.

Democracy's power comes from the people. Abusing power would mean abusing the people. If the people themselves don't find it abuse, who can say it was?

Logic. Do you agree that slavery is an abuse of power?

Yeah, I fucking hope you can see where this is leading.

Point? Try to be clear.

You argue that one could carry a knife to fight someone armed with a knife. This is akin to a gunman fighting someone armed with a gun.

Not every crime is an armed one. We do have the right of citizen's arrest, the state just doesn't encourage it, unless you contact the police first, then try to stall the situation with it until they arrive. I don't see how that's babying.

You don't see how taking away everyone's guns and giving them only to the police, utterly relying on their force to battle criminals, isn't being babied by the state?

More will die from starvation/malnutrition after we're left with trying to eat meat with safety scissors.

If you seriously believe what you just typed then you are a complete retard.

Seriously, I hope that was an attempt at humor.

It's probably about time for you to substantiate that claim.

I think Switzerland was a pretty fucking good substantiation of what proper firearm-training can do.