Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A novel argument for gun control

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. The people most strongly against gun control are conservative lunatics
2. Conservative lunatics tend strongly to hold the wrong opinion on political issues
Conclusion: Gun control is very likely to be the right thing to do

Surprisingly good, right?
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 11:19:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 3:51:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. The people most strongly against gun control are conservative lunatics
2. Conservative lunatics tend strongly to hold the wrong opinion on political issues
Conclusion: Gun control is very likely to be the right thing to do

Surprisingly good, right?

1. You're dismissing the entire population of liberal and moderate gun owners. Yes they exist.
2. That depends on your moral values.

Conclusion: Gun control could also be the wrong thing to do.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:07:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Everyone is right about some things and wrong about some things, the fact that a person is wrong on one thing doesn't mean they are wrong on another thing unless knowing one thing depends on knowing the other. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
2. Hitler thought cigarettes were bad for people, which he was right about, but that didn't stop him from being wrong about whether or not millions of innocent jews, blacks, gays, and others deserved to die.
Conclusion: Your argument is worse than Hitler.
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or how about a real argument for gun control:

Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 9:42:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To add to my previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rates per 100,000 people (all intentional, including guns):

US Homicides: 4.8 (3.6 due to firearms)

UK Homicides: 1 (0.04 due to firearms)

Japan: 0.3 (0 due to firearms)

Luxembourg: 0.8 (0.6 due to firearms)

Norway: 2.2 (0.04 due to firearms)

Ireland: 1.2 (0.8 due to firearms, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...)

It goes on, and on, and on. Notice how we have more firearm deaths per 100,000 people than the other countries I listed COMBINED.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 12:05:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Probably the worst argument I've heard in a long time but I'm gonna assume you were trolling
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 12:16:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:42:48 AM, buddha49er wrote:
To add to my previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rates per 100,000 people (all intentional, including guns):

US Homicides: 4.8 (3.6 due to firearms)

UK Homicides: 1 (0.04 due to firearms)

Japan: 0.3 (0 due to firearms)

Luxembourg: 0.8 (0.6 due to firearms)

Norway: 2.2 (0.04 due to firearms)

Ireland: 1.2 (0.8 due to firearms, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...)

It goes on, and on, and on. Notice how we have more firearm deaths per 100,000 people than the other countries I listed COMBINED.

Japan- 0 due to firearms? That does not seem right. Any hypothesis on why that is?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:42:48 AM, buddha49er wrote:
To add to my previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rates per 100,000 people (all intentional, including guns):

US Homicides: 4.8 (3.6 due to firearms)

UK Homicides: 1 (0.04 due to firearms)

Japan: 0.3 (0 due to firearms)

Luxembourg: 0.8 (0.6 due to firearms)

Norway: 2.2 (0.04 due to firearms)

Ireland: 1.2 (0.8 due to firearms, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...)

It goes on, and on, and on. Notice how we have more firearm deaths per 100,000 people than the other countries I listed COMBINED.

Norway is scary.
They have a higher murder rate then us, if we exclude guns, which means they enjoy their murders up close and personal.
Such rage.
My work here is, finally, done.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 3:51:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. The people most strongly against gun control are conservative lunatics

This premise begs what a lunatic is, and whether it applies to conservative ideology. You inherently connect lunacy with conservatism, and then you conclude that because the two are connected conservatives are therefore wrong. You then stick gun control in then win off circular logic.
Nolite Timere
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

Gee, what could we do about that?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 2:54:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:39:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

Gee, what could we do about that?
Increase law enforcement budget instead of the militaries, and work with the already new regulations with a fresh start from the 80's gun boom.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:54:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:39:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

Gee, what could we do about that?
Increase law enforcement budget instead of the militaries, and work with the already new regulations with a fresh start from the 80's gun boom.

Gun control is about preventing guns from getting into circulation and/or allowing them to be carried freely, not about what to do afterward. Are you saying we should be tighter on gun control or not?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:25:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 1:57:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/29/2014 3:51:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. The people most strongly against gun control are conservative lunatics

This premise begs what a lunatic is, and whether it applies to conservative ideology. You inherently connect lunacy with conservatism, and then you conclude that because the two are connected conservatives are therefore wrong. You then stick gun control in then win off circular logic.

I don't understand. The world needs to change, therefore conservation of the status quo is lunacy. It also amuses me that you've actually managed to offer a false critique of that argument - the logic isn't circular in the slightest.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 12:05:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
Probably the worst argument I've heard in a long time but I'm gonna assume you were trolling

Really? It seems like a pretty valid argument. You can dispute the premises if you like but far more bizarre assertions are made quite regularly. I mean... don't a significant number of conservatives believe in Creation but not climate change in your country? Presumably having been insulted you feel the need to insult me in return, but I think the accusations I level are made from far sturdier ground.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:30:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/6/2014 12:05:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
Probably the worst argument I've heard in a long time but I'm gonna assume you were trolling

Really? It seems like a pretty valid argument. You can dispute the premises if you like but far more bizarre assertions are made quite regularly. I mean... don't a significant number of conservatives believe in Creation but not climate change in your country? Presumably having been insulted you feel the need to insult me in return, but I think the accusations I level are made from far sturdier ground.

Dude I will debate you right now over whether this is a sound argument or not. As soon as I get access to a computer, I'll be sending the challenge.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. Despite identifying as a conservative, there's very little you could say about US conservatism or the Republican Party that I'm going to identity with and be upset over. My conservatism is more a philosophy than a basis for policy. I just genuinely do think this is the worst argument I've seen in a long time, and from what I've seen of you before I had assumed you were more intelligent than that.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
jnedwards11
Posts: 352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:51:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 9:42:48 AM, buddha49er wrote:
To add to my previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rates per 100,000 people (all intentional, including guns):

US Homicides: 4.8 (3.6 due to firearms)

UK Homicides: 1 (0.04 due to firearms)

Japan: 0.3 (0 due to firearms)

Luxembourg: 0.8 (0.6 due to firearms)

Norway: 2.2 (0.04 due to firearms)

Ireland: 1.2 (0.8 due to firearms, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...)

It goes on, and on, and on. Notice how we have more firearm deaths per 100,000 people than the other countries I listed COMBINED.

What I noticed was a cherry picked list of developed countries in a misleading attempt to show a simple minded correlation that doesn't even exist. What happens when you include Russia, or almost ANY developed country in South America with gun control? The conclusion you are trying to make becomes impossible....

Let's also not forget how incredibly absurd it is to compare completely different countries with completely different laws, belief systems, honor codes, histories & cultures (not to mention differences in definitions and methods of reporting) and then pretend that the root cause of violence is the same in each place because each one is "developed". This is a constitutional right people, you owe it to yourself to think WAY deeper than this before you decide to just give it up.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:12:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:25:59 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/6/2014 1:57:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/29/2014 3:51:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. The people most strongly against gun control are conservative lunatics

This premise begs what a lunatic is, and whether it applies to conservative ideology. You inherently connect lunacy with conservatism, and then you conclude that because the two are connected conservatives are therefore wrong. You then stick gun control in then win off circular logic.

I don't understand. The world needs to change, therefore conservation of the status quo is lunacy. It also amuses me that you've actually managed to offer a false critique of that argument - the logic isn't circular in the slightest.

Conservatism isn't an ideology based on clinging to the past. Regardless of what the past is, conservative ideology would still be the same. Also, if something is correct, then it is changed and it is now wrong, is it lunacy to try to go back to when it was correct?

Your argument in a nutshell - Conservatives are wrong because they are lunatics. Conservatives are lunatics because they are wrong.
Nolite Timere
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:15:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:12:25 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:25:59 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/6/2014 1:57:56 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/29/2014 3:51:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. The people most strongly against gun control are conservative lunatics

This premise begs what a lunatic is, and whether it applies to conservative ideology. You inherently connect lunacy with conservatism, and then you conclude that because the two are connected conservatives are therefore wrong. You then stick gun control in then win off circular logic.

I don't understand. The world needs to change, therefore conservation of the status quo is lunacy. It also amuses me that you've actually managed to offer a false critique of that argument - the logic isn't circular in the slightest.

Conservatism isn't an ideology based on clinging to the past. Regardless of what the past is, conservative ideology would still be the same. Also, if something is correct, then it is changed and it is now wrong, is it lunacy to try to go back to when it was correct?

Your argument in a nutshell - Conservatives are wrong because they are lunatics. Conservatives are lunatics because they are wrong.

Purely out of interest, when was it right? I'm also pretty sure it goes 'X are stupid, X think A is incorrect, therefore A is likely to be correct'. I'm fully aware it's an absurd argument - it wouldn't be particularly funny otherwise - but I don't think it's 'invalid' in the textbook sense.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:58:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:50:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:30:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/6/2014 12:05:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
Probably the worst argument I've heard in a long time but I'm gonna assume you were trolling

Really? It seems like a pretty valid argument. You can dispute the premises if you like but far more bizarre assertions are made quite regularly. I mean... don't a significant number of conservatives believe in Creation but not climate change in your country? Presumably having been insulted you feel the need to insult me in return, but I think the accusations I level are made from far sturdier ground.

Dude I will debate you right now over whether this is a sound argument or not. As soon as I get access to a computer, I'll be sending the challenge.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. Despite identifying as a conservative, there's very little you could say about US conservatism or the Republican Party that I'm going to identity with and be upset over. My conservatism is more a philosophy than a basis for policy. I just genuinely do think this is the worst argument I've seen in a long time, and from what I've seen of you before I had assumed you were more intelligent than that.

Take it easy. I wouldn't say I'm trolling right now but I'm definitely not being serious... Conservatives are clearly not all lunatics and the argument attempts to predict the correct course of action via the stupidity of a certain party, which I thought was a pretty funny way to structure an inductive argument. As far as I'm aware it's technically valid, we just happen to know that the premises are stupid and vague. I am completely unsure of whether you thought I was intelligent, in which case I am honoured, or whether you're saying that only the most idiotic individual to ever exist could jokingly formulate this argument, meaning that any impression I could have previously made would almost certainly have made me seem more intelligent than I seem now, which is somewhat less flattering.

Most of the conservatives I see on this website aren't too bad anyway. Quite a few are clearly heartless individuals, but this is an online forum likely to attract such people. The rest are fairly decent people who have reached incorrect conclusions, I suppose. I'm sure you're one of the latter, or something thereabouts.
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:37:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:51:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:42:48 AM, buddha49er wrote:
To add to my previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rates per 100,000 people (all intentional, including guns):

US Homicides: 4.8 (3.6 due to firearms)

UK Homicides: 1 (0.04 due to firearms)

Japan: 0.3 (0 due to firearms)

Luxembourg: 0.8 (0.6 due to firearms)

Norway: 2.2 (0.04 due to firearms)

Ireland: 1.2 (0.8 due to firearms, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...)

It goes on, and on, and on. Notice how we have more firearm deaths per 100,000 people than the other countries I listed COMBINED.

What I noticed was a cherry picked list of developed countries in a misleading attempt to show a simple minded correlation that doesn't even exist. What happens when you include Russia, or almost ANY developed country in South America with gun control? The conclusion you are trying to make becomes impossible....

Let's also not forget how incredibly absurd it is to compare completely different countries with completely different laws, belief systems, honor codes, histories & cultures (not to mention differences in definitions and methods of reporting) and then pretend that the root cause of violence is the same in each place because each one is "developed". This is a constitutional right people, you owe it to yourself to think WAY deeper than this before you decide to just give it up.

A developed country in South America? Cool, name one where the government actually has a little semblance of control and corruption doesn't run rampant. I've heard Mexico used a lot as a counter, because ignoring the whole "criminals run the country" thing seems to work for the pro-gun folk.

As for the cherry picking, tell me exactly which countries you would include? Tell you what: show me exactly why the nations I used are a bad comparison, and if you make a legitimate argument, I'll attempt to conform my argument to include your objections.

If I include Russia, we are at a standstill. http://www.gunpolicy.org...

That lists homicides by any method (including guns). They don't have specific gun murders, so I honestly couldn't tell you if this is better for your point than mine. What I will say is they have way more murders than we do, and their gun regulations are stricter. I'd be cautious to use this as proof in your direction though, it being the seeming outlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

So you're agreeing that having a ton of guns generally leads to more gun murders?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:39:00 PM, buddha49er wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

So you're agreeing that having a ton of guns generally leads to more gun murders?
No, I'm saying regulation isn't the problem. It's circulation.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:45:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 12:16:30 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:42:48 AM, buddha49er wrote:
To add to my previous post:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rates per 100,000 people (all intentional, including guns):

US Homicides: 4.8 (3.6 due to firearms)

UK Homicides: 1 (0.04 due to firearms)

Japan: 0.3 (0 due to firearms)

Luxembourg: 0.8 (0.6 due to firearms)

Norway: 2.2 (0.04 due to firearms)

Ireland: 1.2 (0.8 due to firearms, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...)

It goes on, and on, and on. Notice how we have more firearm deaths per 100,000 people than the other countries I listed COMBINED.

Japan- 0 due to firearms? That does not seem right. Any hypothesis on why that is?

It's near impossible to acquire a firearm in Japan. It's also 0 in Hong Kong (they list it separately from China), 0 in South Korea, and very close to 0 in several other countries.

My theory is this: with every other murder weapon, you have to get very close to the person, use it, and generally use it over and over until the person is dead. Since that requires a lot of effort and gives you a lot of time to back out since it takes longer, most people don't go that route. Guns, on the other hand, allow you to kill somebody in a split second and generally don't allow for backsies. Guns make murder really, really easy. Without guns, most people don't want to put in the effort, is my guess.
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:48:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:39:38 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:39:00 PM, buddha49er wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

So you're agreeing that having a ton of guns generally leads to more gun murders?
No, I'm saying regulation isn't the problem. It's circulation.

So, having a bunch of guns IN CIRCULATION (which was the implied context of my previous post) leads to more gun murders, then? That was my original point.

If we tighten regulations and get rid of those pesky guns in circulation, they'll not be available for murder. And we have the additional bonus of screwing the cartels out of their US gun supply. Win - Win.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:50:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:58:20 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:50:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 3:30:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/6/2014 12:05:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
Probably the worst argument I've heard in a long time but I'm gonna assume you were trolling

Really? It seems like a pretty valid argument. You can dispute the premises if you like but far more bizarre assertions are made quite regularly. I mean... don't a significant number of conservatives believe in Creation but not climate change in your country? Presumably having been insulted you feel the need to insult me in return, but I think the accusations I level are made from far sturdier ground.

Dude I will debate you right now over whether this is a sound argument or not. As soon as I get access to a computer, I'll be sending the challenge.

You didn't offend me in the slightest. Despite identifying as a conservative, there's very little you could say about US conservatism or the Republican Party that I'm going to identity with and be upset over. My conservatism is more a philosophy than a basis for policy. I just genuinely do think this is the worst argument I've seen in a long time, and from what I've seen of you before I had assumed you were more intelligent than that.

Take it easy. I wouldn't say I'm trolling right now but I'm definitely not being serious... Conservatives are clearly not all lunatics and the argument attempts to predict the correct course of action via the stupidity of a certain party, which I thought was a pretty funny way to structure an inductive argument. As far as I'm aware it's technically valid, we just happen to know that the premises are stupid and vague. I am completely unsure of whether you thought I was intelligent, in which case I am honoured, or whether you're saying that only the most idiotic individual to ever exist could jokingly formulate this argument, meaning that any impression I could have previously made would almost certainly have made me seem more intelligent than I seem now, which is somewhat less flattering.

Most of the conservatives I see on this website aren't too bad anyway. Quite a few are clearly heartless individuals, but this is an online forum likely to attract such people. The rest are fairly decent people who have reached incorrect conclusions, I suppose. I'm sure you're one of the latter, or something thereabouts.

Hey man, I think it's pretty funny as a troll argument. I just think it's a really, really bad argument to be taken seriously but you were clearly joking so it's cool
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 8:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:48:34 PM, buddha49er wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:39:38 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:39:00 PM, buddha49er wrote:
At 7/6/2014 2:17:34 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/6/2014 9:41:26 AM, buddha49er wrote:
Developed nations that have gun control have fewer murders and 1/30th or less the gun murders.
They also don't have 360,000,000 weapons in circulation

So you're agreeing that having a ton of guns generally leads to more gun murders?
No, I'm saying regulation isn't the problem. It's circulation.

So, having a bunch of guns IN CIRCULATION (which was the implied context of my previous post) leads to more gun murders, then? That was my original point.

If we tighten regulations and get rid of those pesky guns in circulation, they'll not be available for murder. And we have the additional bonus of screwing the cartels out of their US gun supply. Win - Win.

That was my point. We don't need more buying regulation as much as we do taking guns out of black circulation, or through gang movement (Which is how the majority of guns are circulated, illegally). I would like to see people stop privately selling guns without a license at the flea market though. Makes me wonder where else they do it.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
jnedwards11
Posts: 352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 11:13:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

A developed country in South America? Cool, name one where the government actually has a little semblance of control and corruption doesn't run rampant. I've heard Mexico used a lot as a counter, because ignoring the whole "criminals run the country" thing seems to work for the pro-gun folk.

As for the cherry picking, tell me exactly which countries you would include? Tell you what: show me exactly why the nations I used are a bad comparison, and if you make a legitimate argument, I'll attempt to conform my argument to include your objections.

If I include Russia, we are at a standstill. http://www.gunpolicy.org...

That lists homicides by any method (including guns). They don't have specific gun murders, so I honestly couldn't tell you if this is better for your point than mine. What I will say is they have way more murders than we do, and their gun regulations are stricter. I'd be cautious to use this as proof in your direction though, it being the seeming outlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Have you looked much into the criminal and government corruption problems Russia experiences? What kind of definition for developed are you using and where is the line drawn as "too much crime" for developed? Why is Russian crime ok, but not Brazil, Mexico, or Venezuela? Is building billions of dollars in infrastructure for nothing more than a sporting event (Brazil) not a pretty significant sign of development? Can't you see how using "high crime levels" (apparently as defined by you) automatically fixes the numbers in your favor anyway? Can you show me how the high levels of crime and consistent examples of corruption in the US are somehow different from other places south of us? If we runout of money to adequately fund our police forces do you think our criminals and corrupt will just give up and help the national cause?

And if we do insist on comparisons we should also consider violent crime rates.....Do you know that the UK and Luxembourg both have considerably higher violent crime rates than the US? Would you really want a higher survival rate for career criminals (they make up the vast majority of gun murder victims) in return for a higher potential of your daughter/mother/sister being rapped? I certainly wouldn't, which is just another reason you can't look at an obviously fixed statistic and base your entire line of reasoning off of it.

Regardless of all this though, I digress, because in truth, your whole reply ignores my main point. Show me a study that compares "gun control" in all "developed" countries (however those are defined) that accounts for each and all of the factors I mentioned in my first post, and then I'll attempt to conform my argument to include your objections. Without clear controls you are simply picking other countries on your own terms. This is a self fulfilling attempt to prove your own belief, it is not an objective review of legitimate factors relating to guns in America.

World crime rates.......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Brazil World Cup development....
http://www.ey.com...

Russian corruption problems.....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

US Gun crimes by category......
http://blogtruth.net...
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 11:21:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 8:04:15 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
That was my point. We don't need more buying regulation as much as we do taking guns out of black circulation, or through gang movement (Which is how the majority of guns are circulated, illegally). I would like to see people stop privately selling guns without a license at the flea market though. Makes me wonder where else they do it.

Wow. I know there's more than twice as much racial disparity in the way we enforce the limited gun control laws we already have in the US, but it's not often you see someone honestly admitting that they want stricter gun law enforcement so they can disarm and arrest blacks.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 11:25:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 11:21:00 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
At 7/6/2014 8:04:15 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
That was my point. We don't need more buying regulation as much as we do taking guns out of black circulation, or through gang movement (Which is how the majority of guns are circulated, illegally). I would like to see people stop privately selling guns without a license at the flea market though. Makes me wonder where else they do it.

Wow. I know there's more than twice as much racial disparity in the way we enforce the limited gun control laws we already have in the US, but it's not often you see someone honestly admitting that they want stricter gun law enforcement so they can disarm and arrest blacks.

I meant black market dude
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8