Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:36 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
As for the tanks, I will leave you to explain them.
I figure the best way to confiscate your firearms is with a tank. Maybe an F-22.
  #602  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:50 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Is that survey one of the ones that defines a DGU as locking your bedroom door when you hear somebody breaking in in the middle of the night, yelling "Get out of here, I have a gun", then waiting for the bad guys to rob you and leave? If so, I think 55,000 may be a bit high.
I gave you the low estimate dip shit. It's the number accepted by gun-grabbers when they don't like the 1 to 2.5 million number given by anonymous phone surveys. You can read more about it here:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

But hey, if you guns don't like science, we can go back to raw footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bkvs6_BYzA
  #603  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:07 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Or is it one of the ones that counts DGU as "I saw a guy and he was prolly gonna do a crime, but I flashed mah gun at him and he runned away."

Or counts the stories that folks mail in to gun lovers digest that read like Penthouse Forum letters: "Dear Gun Lovers Digest: i never thought this would happen to me, but one day I was out minding my own business, with my trusty gun, and..."
This.

The last (and only) time I had an intruder, I was sitting in my computer room and heard my front door open and close. I stepped out into the hallway to find a rather confused young lady. The conversation went like this:

Me: Hello?
Her: I'm looking for (upstairs neighbor)
Me: Wrong apartment. He's one up.
Her: Oh... thanks. Sorry (leaves)

It could have gone like this:
Me: (grabs gun) Get out of my house!
Her: (wets herself and runs screaming)

Now, I'm willing to bet that folks like Kable would have treated the second version as a "responsible gun owner defending himself", even though I was in no physical danger whatsoever.

Basically, I do not think that the number of crimes prevented by responsible gun owners is zero, I do think that the hundreds per day espoused by folks like Kable is bullshit. I think that most of those reports are folks who overreacted to a situation and grabbed their guns when simply turning on a light would have been just as effective, and they then claimed that their guns saved them.
  #604  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:08 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I gave you the low estimate dip shit. It's the number accepted by gun-grabbers when they don't like the 1 to 2.5 million number given by anonymous phone surveys. You can read more about it here:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

But hey, if you guns don't like science, we can go back to raw footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bkvs6_BYzA
Thanks for the link; that was an excellent report that seemed to back up my point: unless we have a clear definition of what a defensive gun use is, we won't have any accurate way of estimating how many DGU's are performed each year. And, they didn't provide their definition, or the definition that was used to come up with the 55,000 number you used.

Got a definition?
  #605  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:28 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Thanks for the link; that was an excellent report that seemed to back up my point: unless we have a clear definition of what a defensive gun use is, we won't have any accurate way of estimating how many DGU's are performed each year. And, they didn't provide their definition, or the definition that was used to come up with the 55,000 number you used.

Got a definition?
55,000 was the lowest number on wikipedia. The reference from wikipedia led to that paper you like so much, though that paper cited 65,000 as the low estimate, which more than backed up my point. If you want to know exactly how the questions were asked you can do a little homework. If you have what you think is a more accurate estimate I would be happy to hear it.

Would this count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQcoNr6ZIEc
  #606  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:41 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
55,000 was the lowest number on wikipedia. The reference from wikipedia led to that paper you like so much, though that paper cited 65,000 as the low estimate, which more than backed up my point. If you want to know exactly how the questions were asked you can do a little homework. If you have what you think is a more accurate estimate I would be happy to hear it.

Would this count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQcoNr6ZIEc
Let's try this.
  #607  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:48 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
Try it how? Annually is the USA, how often do you think guns are used defensively?
  #608  
Old 02-17-2013, 11:15 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,948
No idea. I figured that while we were waiting for somebody to come along with a survey and a definition of defensive gun use, we could try and figure out what our own definitions were.
  #609  
Old 02-18-2013, 05:46 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,335
So, country singer Mindy McCready is now dead of a gunshot. Suicide.

How sad.

She would have likely been a person who lost access to her guns due to mental health, domestic violence and/or drug and alcohol problems.

Of course, that is provided her gun ownership were registered and background checks were available during any of the many, many documented red flags she presented.
  #610  
Old 02-18-2013, 06:23 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist View Post
No idea. I figured that while we were waiting for somebody to come along with a survey and a definition of defensive gun use, we could try and figure out what our own definitions were.
Would this meet your definition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQcoNr6ZIEc
  #611  
Old 02-18-2013, 06:43 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Fits my definition of "anecdotal". Post ten of them, it proves something happened ten times. Post a hundred, proves that it happened a hundred times. Post a thousand, proves you have some serious OCD issues.
  #612  
Old 02-18-2013, 06:56 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Fits my definition of "anecdotal". Post ten of them, it proves something happened ten times. Post a hundred, proves that it happened a hundred times. Post a thousand, proves you have some serious OCD issues.
Would you agree justified defensive gun use happens more often than makes the news?

Why are you against guns in the first place?

Last edited by Kable; 02-18-2013 at 06:56 AM.
  #613  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:01 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Why are you against guns in the first place?
Because they kill more good people than bad.
  #614  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:26 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Because they kill more good people than bad.
Like beer?
  #615  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:34 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Love beer!
  #616  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:37 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Love beer!
But beer kills more good people than bad.
  #617  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:43 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Would you agree justified defensive gun use happens more often than makes the news?

Why are you against guns in the first place?
Never said I was. You said I was. I'm really under no obligation to defend positions that you claim I hold.

Kinda like guns, actually, born and raised in Texas, like nothing better than plinking beer cans with a .22. Pretty good shot, as well. Not likely to shoot anything that might prefer I didn't, and empty beer cans have very low self-esteem.

Your first question doesn't make much sense. What do you mean, "makes the news"? In Podunk Falls, twenty miles west of the Docks of Boon, any human-on-human use of a gun is likely to make the news. Detroit, not so much.

Are you trying to imply some conspiracy to withhold all the great stuff about guns?
  #618  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:49 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
But beer kills more good people than bad.
Not against their will.
  #619  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:51 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Never said I was. You said I was. I'm really under no obligation to defend positions that you claim I hold.
I would be happy to hear you clarify your position. How do you think gun control laws should be changed?
  #620  
Old 02-18-2013, 07:52 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Not against their will.
Sober people killed in drunk driving accidents will to be killed?
  #621  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:06 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Sober people killed in drunk driving accidents will to be killed?
Look, Pal, chemically, alcohol is a solution.
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.


  #622  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:14 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Sober people killed in drunk driving accidents will to be killed?
Ah, I get it now; you are advocating that anyone wanting to sell a gun should have to get a permit from the local municipality, and be subject to the same federal, state and local oversight as the sale of alcohol? Who knew there was so little daylight between our positions? Welcome to the club, gungrabber!
  #623  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:26 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Ah, I get it now; you are advocating that anyone wanting to sell a gun should have to get a permit from the local municipality, and be subject to the same federal, state and local oversight as the sale of alcohol? Who knew there was so little daylight between our positions? Welcome to the club, gungrabber!
No I get it. You don't really have any principles. If you like something then you are for it, if you don't then it should be outlawed.

Scratch a gun-grabber and watch a hypocrite bleed.
  #624  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:30 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Shit, scratch a human, watch a hypocrite bleed. You want to keep your mealy-mouth piety to yourself, that would be great.
  #625  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:32 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
You don't really have any principles. If you like something then you are for it, if you don't then it should be outlawed.
And you want to argue a false equivalency between guns and alcohol, but when it collapses, you run back to ad hominem fallacies.
  #626  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:35 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Shit, scratch a human, watch a hypocrite bleed. You want to keep your mealy-mouth piety to yourself, that would be great.
Oh, I'm sorry I nailed your kind so effectively it led to an emotional response. Now back to that question I asked you above:

How do you think gun control laws should be changed?
  #627  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:36 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
And you want to argue a false equivalency between guns and alcohol, but when it collapses, you run back to ad hominem fallacies.
How is the equivalency false? How are you not a hypocrite?
  #628  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:41 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Quote:
...If you like something then you are for it, if you don't then it should be outlawed.
Hate licorice. Hate it with a passion. OK with me if you chow down on a couple pounds a day, knock yourself out, you anise-seed loving motherfucker! Ever notice how "anise" is so close to "anus"? How come that doesn't make the news?

Listen, you gonna send your jack-booted thugs to make me eat licorice, you're gonna get a taste of the hard edge of tai chi!

Last edited by elucidator; 02-18-2013 at 08:43 AM.
  #629  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:42 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Hate licorice. Hate it with a passion. OK with me if you chow down on a couple pounds a day, knock yourself out, you anise-seed loving motherfucker! Ever notice how "anise" is so close to "anus"? How come that doesn't make the news?

Listen, you gonna send your jack-booted thugs to make me eat licorice, you're gonna get a taste of the hard edge of tai chi!
How do you think gun control laws should be changed?
  #630  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:48 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Ugh with the alcohol comparison. It’s facile and stupid, but that’s to be expected I suppose.

The way we determine if something is risky is the proportion of times that something occurs or is used relative to the number of undesirable outcomes. Certainly a plane can crash, and that outcome is terrible. You might interpret it as meaning that airplane travel is very risky. However, having 1.9 deaths occur per every million aircraft miles flown places the risk in some perspective.

Gallup estimates that American adults consume about 4.2 alcoholic beverages per week, or 218.4 per year. There are approximately 238 million adults in the US, meaning that there were approximately 52.1 billion times that alcohol was used among adults last year.

Thus, the rate of harmful outcome per instance of use is going to be quite small. That's even before including the instances of underage drinking, which will be disproportionately associated with harmful outcomes, I assume. (Meaning that if we were to develop a ratio of harmful outcome per use using the number above, it would inaccurately shape the ratio to look worse than it is.)

This is all independent of the fact that we do a great deal more to control and mitigate the negative outcomes of alcohol use than we do of firearms.

But okay, I concede. I don’t drink that much anyway, so I join with Kable in calling for the banning of alcohol use in the United States. I also point out again that he really ought to move, since the majority of accidents occur within a few miles of his house.

Last edited by Hentor the Barbarian; 02-18-2013 at 08:49 AM.
  #631  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:53 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Gallup estimates that American adults consume about 4.2 alcoholic beverages per week, or 218.4 per year. There are approximately 238 million adults in the US, meaning that there were approximately 52.1 billion times that alcohol was used among adults last year.
How many rounds of ammunition did Americans fire last year?
  #632  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:11 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
How many rounds of ammunition did Americans fire last year?
You have to ask me because gun fetishists prevent us from measuring and recording that data.

However, I saw only about five rounds being fired last year. I saw tens of thousands of instances of alcohol consumption.
  #633  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:17 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
You have to ask me because gun fetishists prevent us from measuring and recording that data.

However, I saw only about five rounds being fired last year. I saw tens of thousands of instances of alcohol consumption.
I shot 200 rounds just yesterday and I think probably shot 80,000 rounds last year without a hitch. So probably both guns and alcohol are used pretty often without an undesirable outcome. Would you agree?
  #634  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:24 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
So probably both guns and alcohol are used pretty often without an undesirable outcome. Would you agree?
Another false equivalency gambit?
  #635  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:30 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Another false equivalency gambit?
How so?
  #636  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:42 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I shot 200 rounds just yesterday and I think probably shot 80,000 rounds last year without a hitch. So probably both guns and alcohol are used pretty often without an undesirable outcome. Would you agree?
No. "Pretty often" and "without a hitch" are poorly defined measures.

I'm very confident that private owners did not fire (52 billion + the number of underage alcoholic beverages consumed) rounds in the us last year.

I would also wager that your 80K estimate is like the estimated times a gun stroker uses his fetish object in defense: a dramatically inflated over-estimate.
  #637  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:48 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
No. "Pretty often" and "without a hitch" are poorly defined measures.
Millions or billions of times without hurting anyone good enough?

Quote:
I'm very confident that private owners did not fire (52 billion + the number of underage alcoholic beverages consumed) rounds in the us last year.
Maybe not, but they shot a lot, and deaths due to guns are a lot less than alcohol related deaths.

Quote:
I would also wager that your 80K estimate is like the estimated times a gun stroker uses his fetish object in defense: a dramatically inflated over-estimate.
I'm a competitive shooter, with a log book. How much do you have to wager?
  #638  
Old 02-18-2013, 04:37 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
I'm curious as to what problem we have that you feel would be solved by a National Gun Registry. You don't want to outlaw guns, and you are an NRA member, but support registration. My question is why?
To reduce the flow of guns into criminal hands. If you have licensing and registration, you can keep track of guns and unless a criminal steals a gun or smuggles a gun in from another country, they will not be able to acquire guns because every gun transfer will be subject to a background check and the chain of ownership will be well enough established that we can figure out who is selling or giving guns to criminals (which will reduce the incidence of people selling or giving guns to criminals).

Quote:
1) If Mrs. Lanza had registered her guns, Newtown would still have happened. So would VA Tech, Columbine, and all other mass shootings that we've had.
These events are tragic but they account for a miniscule percentage of all gun murders. I'm interested in bringing down the incidence of gun murders generally. If you can tell me how we can prevent crazy people from doing crazy things, I'm all ears, until then, I'd like to prevent felons, domestic abusers and the adjudicated mentally ill from possessing a firearm.

Quote:
2) If people go off the deep end and want to murder, rape, or steal, they will do it with their previously registered guns.
Historically, legal gun owners "going off the deep end" are not the source of most gun violence. Felons, the mentally ill and domestic abusers are the source of the vast majority of gun violence. We already have laws against them owning handguns but the barrier to their purchase of firearms is so porous that the laws are ineffective.

Quote:
3) Criminals, who by definition don't obey the law, won't register their guns.
We don't need them to. Almost all guns in criminal hands right now were obtained from someone that could legally own them. If you reduce the flow of guns from those who can legally own them to those who cannot, the number of guns in criminal hands will shrink over time, this will reduce gun violence.

Quote:
I would consider registration (if we could trust that the infringements would stop there) as something I could live with if I saw a legitimate need for the cost and the hassle of doing it. I don't see that.
I don't know if it would stop there but I won't stand in the way of a good idea because it might be followed up with a bad idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjin View Post
OK, I know where you are coming from now and will take that into consideration when I see posts from you in the future.
What do you mean by that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Ah, I get it now; you are advocating that anyone wanting to sell a gun should have to get a permit from the local municipality, and be subject to the same federal, state and local oversight as the sale of alcohol? Who knew there was so little daylight between our positions? Welcome to the club, gungrabber!
I don't need a permit to sell my wine collection to a restaurant or another collector, I can't sell it to a someone who is underage but other than that, I don't think there are any restrictions (at least if I sell it to someone in the same state).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I shot 200 rounds just yesterday and I think probably shot 80,000 rounds last year without a hitch. So probably both guns and alcohol are used pretty often without an undesirable outcome. Would you agree?
Are you on SWAT or something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
I'm a competitive shooter...
Oh, that explains it.
  #639  
Old 02-18-2013, 09:58 PM
gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Which is maybe great if you are a young strong man, like a lot of crooks. Certainly not good at all if you are female or elderly, like a lot of victims.
Sure, if we just accept that "a lot" is a meaningless term. If you actually wanted to craft an accurate statement regarding demographics of crime perpetrators and victims, you'd need to post statistics about the proportion of victims and perpetrators in a certain population. As it stands, US women are less likely to be murdered than men and more likely to be raped (we can assume parity in population). Kids in the US aged 13-16 were homicide victims at a rate of about 0.3 per 10k, while 70-74 year olds were murdered at a rate of 2 per 10k if my numbers are correct. I think mode victims for violent crime other than rape are 20-24 year old males pretty much everywhere though.
  #640  
Old 02-18-2013, 11:14 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Sure, if we just accept that "a lot" is a meaningless term.
It means exactly what I meant it to mean. Educate yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a+lot?s=t
Quote:
I think mode victims for violent crime other than rape are 20-24 year old males pretty much everywhere though.
Who said anything about victims "other than rape?"
  #641  
Old 02-19-2013, 12:25 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,335
I just wanna say Kable's arguments have convinced me.

When the gun grabbing begins, I will recommend his guns be scheduled to be picked up in the first wave.
  #642  
Old 02-19-2013, 01:55 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,140
More fun news, lets ban gun control legislation
  #643  
Old 02-19-2013, 02:10 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
I just wanna say Kable's arguments have convinced me.

When the gun grabbing begins, I will recommend his guns be scheduled to be picked up in the first wave.
Molon labe
  #644  
Old 02-19-2013, 02:31 PM
Death of Rats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A Humid Oven
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Cool, but I'm in favor of guns on college campuses. This is what I think of gun free zones:

http://www.wmsa.net/poster.htm

I would just like to point out, not having a gun on me hardly makes me "defenseless" and the fact that you seem to support the claim that you are defenseless without a Smith &Wessen Penis Compensator explains so much.
  #645  
Old 02-19-2013, 02:38 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Molon labe

(Means: 'Come and take it.')


Hmm. Will you shoot me if I do?
  #646  
Old 02-19-2013, 03:03 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
(Means: 'Come and take it.')


Hmm. Will you shoot me if I do?
You'll have to try and find out.
  #647  
Old 02-19-2013, 03:06 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
You'll have to try and find out.
Isn't it hard to aim with one hand?
  #648  
Old 02-19-2013, 03:08 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death of Rats View Post
I would just like to point out, not having a gun on me hardly makes me "defenseless" and the fact that you seem to support the claim that you are defenseless without a Smith &Wessen Penis Compensator explains so much.
So if someone wants to shoot you with a gun, what are you going to use to protect yourself? Karate?

If someone comes after a senior citizen with a club, what would you have them use? Brazilian Jujitsu?
  #649  
Old 02-19-2013, 04:54 PM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
I've never understood this argument. We pass laws against murder and rape because we believe that NOBODY should commit murder or rape. Me, you, or any poster here. And if one of us does, we get punished. Life in prison or a lethal injection is a deterrent for many people who might otherwise kill someone.
I agree that nobody should rape, but murder is another word for a killing, and some people need killing. You can kill for self defense, you can kill to protect land and property sometimes, and in some states you can kill if you feel threatened. We carve out these exemptions to legally do something we believe most people should not be allowed to do and we can do the same for guns. If you need a gun, we can say you are allowed to have one for self-defense, but limit that to hand guns and shot guns. If its for hunting, we can carve out an exemption for that as well. We don't need to give blanket immunity to people owning the item, we need to have laws for exceptions and ban the rest. You will still get your guns for self-defense and for any legal thing, but the result is that most items unsuited for such uses are banned.

Also, consider the comparison with drugs. We ban things like pot and heroin even though there are proper uses of those drugs in medicine and, some would say, for recreation. Drugs can be abused just like guns but they can have legitimate uses too. Plus, with a lot of drugs, you can make your own easier than you can machine together metal pieces for a gun. Why do we ban most drugs, even ones legal in pharmaceutical situations? Because we understand that the item lends itself to horrible abuse.

If you want to keep going, we ban plenty of other things as well. You can't own bombs or bazookas, child porn, biological agents, chemicals, or even move large amounts of legal items like cash when traveling. On its own, you can say each one of these items are surely only dangerous if misused, but if by some happenstance you come across a case of ricin in your deceased uncle's trailer, or some working munitions from grandpa George who fought in WW2, and the authorities found out about it, you could be in trouble if you simply wanted it. There's no reason why the law cannot compel us not to own something if they believe misuse or illegal use of it can be dangerous. Hell, you know that for most people, its even illegal to own eagle feathers? Feathers!

The only differences I see with guns are twofold. One, its the only thing listed that is in the Constitution (though one could argue that bazookas count too), so people seem to feel that as long as its there, they cannot be denied any version of it for legal ownership. And two, guns protect you from other guns so people fear being outgunned and that fear messes with their thinking. Obviously having drugs doesn't help you or hurt you with other drugs, and neither does having child porn do anything against others who have it. So people tend to believe that they can only protect themselves with guns, and if at any time they are outgunned, that's reason to get panicky. Well, I disagree. It doesn't matter of criminals have guns, you have the right to protection using a preset pool of guns. You don't need heavier firearms, that's what the police are for. And if they can't handle it, well, do you worry about what if the police can't confiscate everyone else's drugs so you need to have drugs so that not only criminals have it? No? Then its ok with guns too

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
We want to pass laws for registering guns so that when the minuscule portion of the population commits a crime with a gun, we can trace that gun back to the registered owner. We all understand that grandpa with his shotgun isn't going to be a problem and it's an extra hassle for him, but we agree for the greater good to make everyone register.
How do you know grandpa isn't going to be a problem? Can you foretell the future? Plenty of people who used to own guns legally misuse them later. And plenty of people, without gun registration and background checks, get guns who shouldn't have gotten them in the first place. In another topic, I mentioned that I don't subscribe to the magical supervillain theory. All criminals are not going to be able to get a gun if some of it is restricted. Some will be caught, some will give up finding the hassle is not worth it, some will still get the guns they want, and some will get ones that limit their uses like having a magazine restriction. It is not a given that all criminals, or even most criminals, will be unaffected by a gun registration and background checks. And it is not a given that the number of criminal use is miniscule. With Congress making it impossible for the CDC to do studies on gun violence, I would suspect anybody on that side of the argument if they bring a statistic like that

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
However, the practical effect of the law is that grandpa registers his shotgun, but the criminals do not. So the "good things" the law is supposed to do never happens. We have a new bureaucracy to keep track of how many guns and the serial numbers that I own, but when a drug dealer buys one off of a plane from Colombia, we don't have a list of his guns.
That's one scenario. Or, the future criminal does, commits or tries to commit a crime, and gets his guns taken away. Or the criminal registers and gets his gun taken away because of background checks. Or the cops find a lot of guns registered to a legal owner and traces a source of illegal guns and puts a stop to it. All those things are equally possible. I think registration will help precisely those many other scenarios. And so what if we only tracked legally registered guns? We track legally purchased goods without adding smuggling to our GDP. As a variable of information, its good to have a count of how many legal guns we have in the US just as its good to know how much Big Macs McDonald's is selling each year. Why are you so against information?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
But unlike the rape and murder laws, violating a gun registration law, when the criminal is already going to violate laws that could get him the death penalty or life in prison, is no impediment at all. THAT is the difference between registration and rape/murder laws.
Of course its an impediment! Do all rapists kill their victims? That certainly would make it harder to identify them. Why wouldn't a gun registration violation not catch some criminals, and deter others? Some won't register, but some will and will get caught, and others will and may be less likely to commit a crime knowing their guns could be traced back to them. If I had an unregistered gun, I could just as easily shoot someone and drop the thing so that I can't be tied to the gun. If its registered, I'd think twice about committing that crime, at least with that gun. I swear, you people think that all criminals have this power that they get simply by the fact of being criminals. I don't see any one of the scenarios you gave as the most likely but you choose to focus only on that and ignore everything else.

And really, all it would take for you to comply with the law is a few bucks and some paperwork. If you're really a law-abiding citizen, then you would hardly even notice new gun control proposals. Unless you plan to commit a crime
  #650  
Old 02-19-2013, 08:23 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
If you need a gun, we can say you are allowed to have one for self-defense, but limit that to hand guns and shot guns. If its for hunting, we can carve out an exemption for that as well.
How about target shooting?

Quote:
Also, consider the comparison with drugs.
How about the comparison with alcohol?

Quote:
And two, guns protect you from other guns so people fear being outgunned and that fear messes with their thinking.
They also protect you against knives, hammers, bats and zykon B, don't they?

Quote:
It doesn't matter of criminals have guns, you have the right to protection using a preset pool of guns.
Which ones?

Quote:
If you're really a law-abiding citizen...
Weren't Hitlers SS mostly all law-abiding citizens?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017