Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Askot Bokbondeler]

it's a gateway law!

[Earthquake Damage]

I love how that article phrases things.  Note the final sentence.  "Destroyed" indeed.  Whatever happened to "killed?"

Imagine how newspaper headlines would look if they consistently used such words.  "Man Found Destroyed in Alley"

[Andir]

Slipperrryyy slooooopppeee

It's only a fallacy if there is no evidence or history of such a thing happening.  I have provided links above.

[Andir]

I love how that article phrases things.  Note the final sentence.  "Destroyed" indeed.  Whatever happened to "killed?"

Imagine how newspaper headlines would look if they consistently used such words.  "Man Found Destroyed in Alley"

It's because if they used "kill" it would personify the dog.  They are trying to make it out as an instrument of death.  It's abuse of psychology if you ask me.

[Vester]

Slipperrryyy slooooopppeee

It's only a fallacy if there is no evidence or history of such a thing happening.  I have provided links above.

Yep yep. That's why I didn't say "slipperrryyy slooooopppeee fallacy". Because from here, the logical progression is to regulate those dastardly murderous rabbits.

[Forumsdwarf]

Exactly how often do armed race riots sweep through your neighborhood anyway?

Natural disasters bring similar problems.  Any breakdown of civil order can lead to a situation where rifles are a neighborhood's best defense.
It's always a good idea to be prepared.  How many times has your house been on fire?  Is that a reason not to own a fire extinguisher?

Because from where I'm sitting, anyone believing that keeping a gun around will ward away crime like a tiger-repelling rock ...

I agree that's ridiculous, as ridiculous as believing a fire extinguisher wards away fires, but thankfully almost no gun owner actually believes that owning a gun wards away crime.

All the gun owners I know believe that being armed, trained, and mentally prepared to act (including for home defense actually wargaming intrusion scenarios) improve the odds of survival during a break-in.  We do not see our weapons as talismans or totems but as tools.

All responsible gun owners know that training is what makes the difference.  Most of us who have faced a situation have faced attackers armed with guns (mine was armed with a screwdriver).  We survive these encounters because we train and prepare for them.

Actually, besides criminals there is another large category of "irresponsible" (more like "disinterested") gun owners, people who happened into their weapons and treat them as furniture or valuable heirlooms without ever firing them or training on them.  I've known a few widows who inherited their husband's weapons who have never handled a firearm their entire lives.  "Oh, that's Hank's gun."  But they don't think keeping their departed husband's weapons around wards away crime, either.

I'll admit I'm guilty of this myself ...

This is America.  There is no shame in owning a firearm.  You should learn to use it properly, as it might save your life or the life of someone you care about one day.

[Shades]

This is America.  There is no shame in owning a firearm.  You should learn to use it properly, as it might save your life or the life of someone you care about one day.

Statically, in America at least, it's more likely to get you killed than save your life but personally I figure that is your right as it's your life and it's actually quite rare guns are stolen to be used against someone else, possibly due to how easy they are to get hold of, so it doesn't really endanger anyone else much.

This isn't true in Canada for some reason, I have no idea why the stats vary so much.

[Strife26]

This is America.  There is no shame in owning a firearm.  You should learn to use it properly, as it might save your life or the life of someone you care about one day.

Statically, in America at least, it's more likely to get you killed than save your life but personally I figure that is your right as it's your life and it's actually quite rare guns are stolen to be used against someone else, possibly due to how easy they are to get hold of, so it doesn't really endanger anyone else much.

This isn't true in Canada for some reason, I have no idea why the stats vary so much.

Bull. There isn't a gun study that isn't funded by the NRA or Brady campaign.

[Pathos]

Statically, in America at least, it's more likely to get you killed than save your life

To be honest, this is quite true of all crime. If someone sees YOU with a knife, they'll be more likely to stab you to death than just give you a good beating. It reflects the same with guns.

So, in order to survive, you must shoot the person who's in your home, because it's more likely he'll murder you.

[lordnincompoop]

I got Left-Lib, which is true, but my point on the graph was too leftist for me (or at least that's what I thought).

[Forumsdwarf]

This is America.  There is no shame in owning a firearm.  You should learn to use it properly, as it might save your life or the life of someone you care about one day.

Statically, in America at least, it's more likely to get you killed than save your life ...

Pure myth.  Criminals almost always surrender when confronted with a firearm.
Your training is for either when they don't or when the situation is too dangerous to allow them the opportunity.  (My trainer set 12 feet as the minimum safe distance to attempt to hold an attacker at gunpoint.  Under that and it's only safe to brandish your weapon if you immediately pull the trigger and shoot to kill.)
A lot of you are making the assumption that if you shoot at an attacker it will only make him mad and initiate a wild-west-style gunfight.  The reality is being shot at scares the piss out of most burglars, even if they're armed.
In at least one case that's literally true: a friend of mine shot an armed burglar in the ear and he pissed himself!  One might say he surrendered with a full magazine and an empty bladder.

But enough anecdotal evidence.  Here are some real statistics:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[RedKing]

Unless I'm mistaken you can buy guns at gun shows with absolutely no checks.

Guns shows are considered private sales so no check.

I don't see how this negates the stupidity of being able to buy guns with absolutely no background checks.

There is NO WAY the government can track all private sales of anything. 

No, but they could at least *try*. When I sold my car, both and I and the person I sold it to had to report the sale and the transfer of ownership to the DoT. Granted, it's voluntary reporting so it won't catch everything, but it *is* required by law, so there are at least inducements to self-report.

As for the slippery slope, I'll call bullshit on it and call it a fallacy. You can't draw a logical chain between gun control and restricting certain breeds of animal. Yes, there's a certain overprotective strain of policymaker (usually at the local level) who tries to ban X-acto knives from kids in art class and such. That does not logically stem as an end-product of tighter gun control. For one thing, there are communities in the US who have tighter control over dogs and knives than they do over firearms. Which necessarily disproves the slippery slope argument being made. And in classic slippery slope fallacy form, an irrational prediction is being used to argue against *any* kind of sane controls in the first place.

IMHO, one big problem that we have in the United States is a long-standing culture of "righteous violence". When the guy in the white hat and the guy in the black hat square off, guns a-blazing, the white hat always wins. So people have this subconscious notion that if an "innocent" is armed, they will prevail against an armed bad guy. That's the only logic I see to the recent push by the NRA and its allies to get colleges to allow students to openly carry firearms. Which is almost the worst possible idea I've ever heard of.

[Cheeetar]

This is America.  There is no shame in owning a firearm.  You should learn to use it properly, as it might save your life or the life of someone you care about one day.

Statically, in America at least, it's more likely to get you killed than save your life ...

Pure myth.  Criminals almost always surrender when confronted with a firearm.

Graphs or it didn't happen.
Also: The link you provided has nothing to do with criminals pissing themselves.
Also: Isn't it just as likely that you'll be the one pissing yourself if somebody breaks in with a gun?

[Earthquake Damage]

Which is almost the worst possible idea I've ever heard of.

What a sheltered life you must live.  That's the worst idea you've ever heard?  Seriously? 

[RedKing]

Which is almost the worst possible idea I've ever heard of.

What a sheltered life you must live.  That's the worst idea you've ever heard?  Seriously? 

Consider your average frat boy. Now consider a house full of them. Now give them guns. Yeah, that's a pretty fucking bad idea.
(EDIT: I realize I just described your average Army basic training class, but at least there they have responsible supervision.)

Maybe not "land war in Asia" bad, but as bad ideas go it's in the upper 10%.