Aren't that what they're supposed to do?Ancient Oldie said:
Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Ehmmm...what? I personally oppose all forms of firearms, because all of them can cause harm. Granted, handguns are probably much worse than rifles, what might be better in my opinion would be that you could get rifles for hunting with a license, and that hand guns were made completely illegal. But that's just my opinion, I can't talk for welsh's opinion, nor for the opinion of anyone else.
You people suck for turning this into a gun thread.
Shut up, Kharn. Seriously, EVERYTHING in here turns into something else.
Yeah, but...a gun thread?!
They're really tiring and REALLY uninteresting.
I mean, I must've heard that Ghandi quote at least 3 times before, and every time I think "Man, it's just Ghandi, it's not like everything he said was automatically true, the dude prolly said some really stupid things too"
They're really tiring and REALLY uninteresting.
I mean, I must've heard that Ghandi quote at least 3 times before, and every time I think "Man, it's just Ghandi, it's not like everything he said was automatically true, the dude prolly said some really stupid things too"
But you still refuse to understand. Why is it hard to understand, welsh? Owning a gun is not violent. My guns will probably kill far more paper targets than living creatures. If I don't do anything wrong with my guns, it's not a crime to have them.
Look at your words at, though. Look at the way you phrase things. You don't agree with that. You default view is that firearms are going to be used for violence more often than not. Well, guess what, welsh: you've already admitted that doesn't jive! According to the UN, the number of guns in private ownership in this country is equal to somewhere around 80-90% of the population. According to my math, we're talking about somewhere around 224 - 252 million firearms owned by private citizens. The number of guns used in commission of crimes is nowhere near that. Not even close.
You admitted that once, welsh. If it's true, why are you so afraid?
Heh, I really hate to be the bugger here, Gwydion, but you've been dodging a lot of welsh's points through all his posts and just boil it down to whatever you feel it should boil down so you can make a counter-argument more easily.
Why, for instance, did you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that he undermined your whole "guns help defend people again dictatorships!" arguments?
Why, for instance, did you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that he undermined your whole "guns help defend people again dictatorships!" arguments?
Seriously, that's a bullshit argument. The fact that something is used more for one thing than for something else doesn't make them less dangerous. Besides, YOU aren't benefitting as a criminal from the easy access to guns.
And your second statement makes no sense either "Oooh, look, we have so much more guns in this country that are NOT used than guns that are used criminally, so it must be good!" Come on, you can't seriously believe that. It's HOW they are used, not whether they are used or not.
You're right, Kharn, I'm not addressing every point he makes. Frankly, welsh has a tendency to ramble and not every point he makes is critical. I don't believe I've ignored any especially critical points. As for the guns for oppressed argument, I've said my piece on that: That ability to try is more important than the ability to succeed.
Sander... what?
So according to that logic... We need tighter car controls because that woman in Texas murdered her husband by running him over, it doesn't matter that that's a very rare occurance. We should make adultery illegal because people have killed their spouses to marry a lover, it doesn't matter that doesn't happen very often. We need to license Free Speech, because it's very easy to spread harmful lies about people, even though it doesn't happen very often. We need knife control because a cop is more likely to be killed with a knife than a "semiautomatic assault rifle" even though either one isn't all that common.
Sander... what?
So according to that logic... We need tighter car controls because that woman in Texas murdered her husband by running him over, it doesn't matter that that's a very rare occurance. We should make adultery illegal because people have killed their spouses to marry a lover, it doesn't matter that doesn't happen very often. We need to license Free Speech, because it's very easy to spread harmful lies about people, even though it doesn't happen very often. We need knife control because a cop is more likely to be killed with a knife than a "semiautomatic assault rifle" even though either one isn't all that common.
Guns lying in homes aren't used, cars are being driven. THAT's what I was saying, don't twist my words, Gwydion.
Sander said:
Your argument is still a bit bent. I think what you're trying to say is that the fact that guns are used for harmless purposes, that doesn't make the damage they do alright.
And this is true, but I don't think it's a valid argument, it would be true if guns had no use except to kill people (killing is the primary/intended purpose of guns, as we discussed on the AOF forum, but not the only use), but guns are also used for fun and, as Gwydion would argue, to protect people
So the real argument is not "guns should be allowed just because they're used for harmless purposes more", but it's "guns should be allowed because they prevent more damage than they cause"
Which, in my opinion, isn't true.
Well, Sander, when guns aren't lying in homes, they're being used primarily for target practice. That's what I'm saying and it's a perfectly valid point.
How do you prove that, though? Let's be honest, statistics aren't great for that purpose, as it's easy to adjust the data to say what you want.
How do you prove that, though? Let's be honest, statistics aren't great for that purpose, as it's easy to adjust the data to say what you want.
Gwydion said:
Exactly why it's impossible to argue the point, which is why I said "in my opinion"
I'm a bit too tired to really think on this subject, but you know my opinion on this. Gun freedom, like death penalties, can be a necessary evil in some situation, but should be prevented as much as possible.
The problem comes back to the old rhetoric, then. Guns don't cause crime. It might make some crimes easier, but even then it's debatable that it makes crime in general any easier. Then of course, you have to consider that it can be used for defense, and as a hobby. I don't see it as being at all clear that guns have a greater negative than positive impact.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Americans have many regulations on cars, you need a drivers license, a plate, you have codes to regulate what you should do while driving.
They did it with your almost harmless guns, remember?
You can put an action in court for abuse of free speech, like slander remember?
Big knives should have a permit to be carried, just like small and bigger guns. And serial numbers too.
But even if you don`t agree with this view, wich is fine, don`t talk to us about arms proliferation not beeing a problem in the rest of the world, at least remember the american soldiers killed in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraque and in so many other places where gun owning is endemic.
And all that dodging is kind of disapointing coming from someone that is establishing himself as NMAs devil advocate, following the long and great tradition started by Xotor and Rosh
Brio, the whole point of that string was that it was ludicrous. However, it applied the point I thought Sander was trying to make to other areas of life. The idea was that it would seem stupid. That shouldn't have been hard to understand if you tried to. 
Dodging? Dodging what? I don't want to quote everything welsh says, I'd be buried by the thrid post.
Dodging? Dodging what? I don't want to quote everything welsh says, I'd be buried by the thrid post.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
You`re trying to use hyperboles, but the fact remains that all the areas you`ve speaked off are regulated, and the world is a nicer place because of that, what is so diferent in regulating guns?
And you`re dodging again...
welsh
Junkmaster
Kharn said:
I agree Kharn, this was a better thread before guns came back into it.
Briosafreak said:
You don't need any of that to buy a car. You don't need any of that to own and use a car on private property.
That's the point, Brio, try to keep up.
If I shoot someone, I go to court. That's not enough for guns, why should it be enough for anything else?
Do we need background checks to purchase knives, though? I mean, I criminal isn't going to stop carrying because of a law.
There I'm not dodging your stupid points anymore. If you want, I'll go tit-for-tat with Welsh from now on. A sentence for a sentece, at least. At his going rate of two or three paragraphs per sentence, we should have a novel in a week.