Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If a person would really want to kill you, he could use all sorts of things just to kill you. And there are situations wherein someone would not have died if only there's a gun to protect him.
Welcome here, Robert. You made two arguments above and both are flawed (actually three, but the first one is a rote slogan and not worthy of a response). First, as to "he could use all sorts of things... to kill you". While the statement is true, it ignores the unique lethality of guns that make them so desirable for personal defense. Secondly, as to "if only there's a gun to protect him", the reverse can be said with equally as much validity. Consider this statement: There are situations wherein someone would not have died if only he hadn't gotten a gun to protect himself. Equally as valid, thus your observation has little significance.
So if the reverse can be said, then both statements are null and void and it doesn't matter if a gun is in the equation or not. That someone who would not have died if only he hadn't gotten a gun to protect himself is usually the bad guy. Yes guns are an easier tool to kill people with, all the more reason to have one for protection. How about these: When seconds count, police are minutes away. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy. Or the oldy but goody: It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. According to your logic, your signature "Guns don't kill people, bullets do" is equally as valid as "guns don't kill people, people do" thus your observation has little significance.
If I was a gunfighter I'd certainly be miffed if I was caught out unarmed. However, as a rational individual, I merely calculate the expected costs and benefits from gun ownership. Its a shame more folk don't. We wouldn't have, for example, so many folk blinded by pressure groups interested in eliminating rational gun control measures
Its a personal decision for folks, and the percieved costs and benefits change from person to person.
Fair enough, as long as the individual faces the true costs of their preferences. Anything else would be a celebration of coercive relations
Low brow response, friend. If you have a study that contradicts his, then post it here so we might look at it. Somehow, I doubt you will.
I never knew that guns killed anyone...lock 'em all up - LOL! No, but really, that's totally lame. "Gun don't kill people. People kill people."
With all due respect to Danct and Robert; Welcome to the world of Danct and Reiver Mr. Robert. What these two do not realize in their little liberal world is that statistics, studies and how they interpret the data equals freedom robbing evil incarnate masquerading as do good, feel good fantasy. Only fools, idiots and naïve, sometimes well meaning people believe the kind of propaganda that gun control proponents attempt to stuff down the throats of free men. Stick to your convictions Robert, the SCOTUS, powerful lobbies and best of all common sense is on our side. We can and will by the force of our beloved pro firearm citizens, our constitution, and the mentioned lobbies beat them back to the draconian, dreary back water (intellectually speaking) countries where their ideas and ideal world of gun control is appreciated. (Ha! ; Gun control, the thing that no one, even the gun control proponents themselves seem to know precisely what it is! Of course you have every right to accept what the GC proponents are pushing, but I prefer freedom with a nod to our constitution. Rev A ps I like this one and demonstrates the common sense comment I made ; "it ignores the unique lethality of guns that make them so desirable for personal defense."...Think about that! Over the counter toxins, knives Have a lethality all their own (uniqueness) and are, more lethal in every category than many firearms. I wonder how the gun control proponents come up with the whacky logic, and I do believe it shows the disconnect and the unreasonable, hysterical bias against firearms that many of the BB’s have.
Its not the weapons that are available its the mindset of the society that denotes the casualties. If everyone were Buddhists I doubt that even if every Buddhist carried a machine gun there would be very much if any deaths by firearm. Liberals ignore the real problem which is poverty, and other societal influences, including the culture and history of the nation that is being studied. Firearms and firearm death are not caused by too many guns, its caused by the environment that the guns are in! Rev A
Disclaimer; When I mention UK citizens etc I am speaking generally, a kind of blanket statement. I post this disclaimer for brevity and because I do not want to post every time an long explanation. (see via the last sentence how my first language, French, gets in the way of sentence structure? Ha ha) Mr Roon, I think Reiver is from England or the UK. (sory Reiver I just now see I have been misspelling your name, it was not intentional). So I understand why his perception of reality and values are different from a citizen from the USA. The UK etc has historically forfeited freedom for what they perceive as safety which flies in the face of many US citizens idea of what is an ideal society. I have come to the conclusion that many UK and Europeans just as many USA citizens really do not understand that their idea of an ideal situation of gun control (for example) is unacceptable in either or nation. In the USA its not the majority that rules! No not at all! Our constitution etc is set up to protect the minority or the unpopular. So even if Gun control was a wonderful thing that reduced deaths etc its still not worth substituting it for freedom! Calling on studies and stats do nothing to help the case for gun control for that is NOT the issue, at least not in the USA at the current time. That must be very difficult for liberal gun control proponents to swallow, because when mentioned its generally ignored or I am met with even more smoke and mirrors in an attempt to confuse the issue. I suppose the S&M (ha ha S&M INDEED!) are an attempt to change the attack on firearm freedom to something easier to defeat? In any case this firearm control is not a global issue! it’s a regional issue. What may be ideal for Europe or the UK is a horror in the USA or Vice versa. That truism is why I do not often debate gun control in this forum. To intelligently discuss gun control the titles should be thus; Gun control In England pro and con. Gun control In the USA pro and con. I am more sure than ever that they are different subjects when the society and culture are included in the debate. My Ideal form of gun control begins with starting them early! Here is a photo of my niece and some friends of the (internet) church and christian humanitarian mission I pastor ~ Rev A
So you're saying that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis only reflects some negative aspect of US culture? I'd complain about your anti-Americanism, but there's no need: positive effects from gun control are also found in Canada and Australia.
Your inability to respond with sense isn't interesting. It does help me as I suggest pro-gun bints aren't able to think things through, but its a result that I hate
America has its own unique culture and history. No foreigners are entitled to interfere in our domestic affairs. The birth and expansion of America across the North American continent couldn't have happened without guns.
Well there again, by that response it seems that you are telegraphing, subliminally perhaps, the subjectivity and bias inherent in your personality, and by proxy your ‘cultural upbringing’. As I have been saying what you offer as negative isn’t when understood from the perspective most firearm owners and an goodly percentage of USA citizens. Why? Because firearm proponents are more likely than not to be steeped in this quote ; “ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Remember that, because its a MANTRA of our cause! Then you reinforce that your ideas are highly subjective resulting from cultural influences by the Canada/Australia quip! Those countries do not have the culture that we do in the USA, and thus the same ideas of what is or what is not ‘positive effects‘. To a (most) USA citizen freedom trumps nearly everything, please read the Franklin quote again if you do not understand my grammar. What you understand as ‘positive effects’ , I see as nearly negative effects, i.e. (briefly) selling out your freedom for control. So you choose maybe not by any fault of your own, to neuter yourself, well that is your prerogative. However do not attempt to neuter everyone that rejects Gun Control. If you want gun control wonderful! You have it in the UK and other nations. Please do not attempt to export your kind of slavery, ie so called gun control to the USA, my home. Here in USA the SCOTUS has spoken and the general trend is away from draconian gun control. Don't believe me? Go to any gun show and many gun shops where everything from full auto machine guns to .50 cal semi autos are available! In the UK etc where citizens drop em’ for the king maybe they are better off having less freedom and firearms. Maybe they have to have someone telling them what color to poo and to strap on their MANDATORY safety helmet before they get out of bed. Maybe they believe the lie of cradle to the grave safety. Or that a little control is better than breathing free air, I, and most of my fellow USA citizens DON'T! That is well and good, but it’s dog poo in the punch bowl here in the USA, at least to firearm i.e. constitutional rights proponents. Rev A
The only aspect of my upbringing that is pertinent is my training in the scientific method. My background of course, being from a country gun owning household, would suggest a bias in favour of guns. Objective literature review methods won through Its actually "Gun control is about defending liberty, with coercive relationships considered rather than ignored" I already know you're not a fan of freedom and you want coercion to go on unhindered. You're probably aware of that, which would explain the fluff in the rest of your post
No, I am not, (nor it seems are other pro firearm members here) disputing statistical analysis etc, that was made clear by my last reply. I will comment on your statement though. I am afraid you are in denial. Of course there many different theories of how we develop our personalities, such is is it nature or nurture? Your local culture may have tempered your ideas as you point out. You have mentioned in the past that you are moderate in your gun control desires. That moderation may very well be attributed to your 'local'* upbringing. However your nations culture is what has effected your true core values. In addition its more PC to be anti gun in your culture than here, although some micro cultures are less freedom and more socialist orientated. (San Francisco for example which has a high percentage of ummm' less macho types and is seen as more European) * By local upbringing, I mean your being brought up in a firearm friendly atmosphere. God I just felt a low magnitude earthquake, that was Franklin rolling in his grave! I can not see anything false about that statement other than its butchering the definition of the word 'liberty', and the weasel wording in an attempt to elicit an emotional response. Yes IN OUR CULTURE IE THE CULTURE OF THE USA Freedom is among the top concerns, read our constitution and the declaration of independence, that is what we live our lives by. Most other ideals are important but secondary. No, as in the past your powers of ESP fail you! I am afraid you are a victim of your own prejudices and denials. I am a fan of freedom described by our CULTURE our CONSTITUTION. Wake up and grow up Reiver, the WORLD is not fair! At least what an outsider considers fair. Fair is a highly subjective concept eh? You at your age should have learned that each CULTURE is different, NOT wrong but DIFFERENT. Each culture makes their OWN rules. They not be FAIR but they are tailored to what the culture feels is GOOD. Again I feel that the Franklin quote encapsulates my entire argument and my kind of freedom trumps your kind of slavery by safety. If you feel we are less free that your folk is with the cameras that watch your countrymen hump in the bed room, a country where you gave away firearms and a portion of your freedom to your king, where your countrymen socialist propensities DO sell out your essential liberties for what may seem as safety, in a country that has a ghost of a constitution and no bill of rights, stay there PLEASE! Ha ha do not attempt to export your interpretation of freedom here to the USA, it is unwanted here as are England's other problems. Lastly I do not agree with your mantra that because we place a lower value on gun control that somehow that translates to abridging others freedoms. I hate to be the one to break this to you Reiver but ANY law is abridging someones freedom. So at best freedom is subjective and your definition of freedom is degrees of slavery to firearm proponents. (I say degrees because no one, especially you it seems knows what gun control means in precise, exact terms). Rev A
Nope, I'm simply summarising that- whilst I'm from a gun owning household background- I'm able to peruse the evidence with objectivity. I don't find it a difficult proposition at all/ My local culture is pro-gun. Only terms in general aspects such as realising the importance of education and adopting an evidence-based approach All very low powered stuff. As already remarked, I'm from a gun owning background in an area that is very much pro-gun. You've shot yourself in the foot dear boy! The problem is that you only play lip service to these concepts. You've already admitted that you support the continuation of coercive relations. Didn't you realise that it would be rather straight-forward to point out its lack of consistency with freedom? Seemed bleedin obvious to me, but perhaps you thought you could get away with it through blag. Note that you've had to reply with long winded rant. That is the standard response to an evidence-based approach.
What an odd attempt to poison the well, friend. Of course it would have much better effect if it were either true or even relevant to my post. I'm afraid you failed on both counts. I made no reference to any data or studies in my post so you're barking up the wrong tree there, and for you to ascribe misplaced characteristics to me is just downright silly. Wow! Talk about a "disconnect" to logic! You argue loud and often for guns, and then now flip to argue how they are no more preferable than a common knife. I suggest you make up your mind.
No, you've missed the point. Both statements can't be equally valid and "null and void" at the same time. Your conclusion is baseless. The point is that his observation has no significant merit because the reverse is equally valid. As is the fact that guns are used most often by criminals to protect themselves from other criminals. It's all a matter of scale, and the fact that guns are used improperly by previously law-abiding-citizens is significant enough to be included in any adult conversation about the cost/benefits of gun ownership. To hide from this reality is to hide from rationality. Or not. Their unique characteristics also make them worthy of regulation. Common sense, really. All perfect examples of what I remarked on earlier. They are all 'argument by slogan' fallacies. Thank you for posting these well known and thought-limiting cliche's. My, but your capabilities at critical thinking leaves something to be desired. Had you considered that it was precisely my intention to show how my signature and the oft used slogan it mimics are equally valid and yet equally mindless? Its significance is in the readers realization of this fact.
