Guns, guns, guns

[the_cpl]

Few thousand years ago the people killed each others with sticks. If somebody wants to beat the crap out of another person, he uses baseball bat, because that is probably the perfect weapon.

And if they want to kill people, they'll use a gun.

Why are you trying to prove that a gun is not a good killing utility or that other weapons are equally good at killing?

I never said "you can't kill anybody with a gun". I said you can kill without guns too. That's why 5000-7000 murderers in the US kill without a gun, but with knife, baseball bats, and other "tools". (FBI's statistics)

By making guns illegal you also make it harder and more expensive for criminals to own guns (increased risk = increased price).

Yeah right. I bet the criminals in CA and DC can't buy whatever guns they want. The guns are kind of banned those places, but the criminals have guns. So is the ban worth it? No.

Moreover, by making it illegal to own guns you can arrest criminals on a wider range of charges and you prevent mob justice to some extent(essentially in any state of law).

And why an arrest is better, then a victim, who can save his own life with a pistol?

The UK isn't all that dangerous.

I watching the UK crime statistics. You are wrong.

Compare its per capita violent crime and murders to, say, the US.

The US isn't all that dangerous. Compare its per capita violent crime and murders to, say, the South Africa.

But regardless, none of that proves anything because the situation of each country is vastly different. You cannot pin the difference in crime level on gun laws as there are so many other factors in play.

So how do you want to debate, if you don't want to see the crime statistics in different countries?

UK statistics. Gun-ban in 1997. 4 years later the murder rates are about 30% up.

Good job.

More than 22,000 knife crimes each year. Another great example.

 

[Sander]

I never said "you can't kill anybody with a gun". I said you can kill without guns too. That's why 5000-7000 murderers in the US kill without a gun, but with knife, baseball bats, and other "tools". (FBI's statistics)

You really do love isolated statistics, don't you?

Yeah right. I bet the criminals in CA and DC can't buy whatever guns they want. The guns are kind of banned those places, but the criminals have guns. So is the ban worth it? No.

At every single point in this debate you are trying to create a false dichotomy. In this case, you're trying to create a distinct difference between no one having guns or a lot of people having guns. This is a stupid fallacy, and no one is claiming that a total elimination of guns is possible, it's about a reduction of violent crime and victims. Yet you ignore that and go 'there are still guns! This fails!'
Not the point. Are there fewer guns? Is it harder for criminals to obtain guns? Are there hence less violent crimes? Those are the relevant questions, not the ridiculous question 'Is there no crime at all now?'

Logic says that yes, gun laws do have an effect on criminals. As making gun ownership illegal means owning a gun carries extra risks, and obtaining a gun should be more expensive.

And why an arrest is better, then a victim, who can save his own life with a pistol?

And here you do it again. Is it really 'Either someone is dead or they save their own life?" No. It is, again, about the total effects of such gun laws. You try to reduce it to an individual example of someone being confronted by someone apparently intent on murdering them (and really, that almost never happens outside of the criminal circuit), while there are many more intermediate situations.

I watching the UK crime statistics. You are wrong.
The US isn't all that dangerous. Compare its per capita violent crime and murders to, say, the South Africa.

The UK isn't to the US what South Africa is to the US, smartass. You need to compare relatively similar situations over a large sample size to come to conclusions. When you say 'the UK is a dangerous place' then you need to have a baseline to be able to say that as 'dangerous' isn't an absolute measure. For instance, 12th century England was undoubtedly dangerous compared to modern England - but that doesn't mean it was a dangerous country for its day.

So how do you want to debate, if you don't want to see the crime statistics in different countries?

I'm sorry, is that what I said? I thought I said it's nearly impossible to compare individual statistics since you cannot seperate gun laws and effects from all the other processes going on at the same time. That is a reasoned argument as to why applying statistics the way you want to cannot be done, it isn't 'I don't want to discuss statistics'.

UK statistics. Gun-ban in 1997. 4 years later the murder rates are about 30% up.

Good job.

More than 22,000 knife crimes each year. Another great example.

Okay, maybe you need a course in how you apply statistics. First, stand-alone statistics mean nothing whatsoever. You need to have a baseline to compare the statistics to. Just throwing out there '22,000 knife crimes a year' means nothing. How does it compare to other nations, what is the per capita line etc.
Second, comparing individual situations makes little sense as there are always a lot of differences between each situation that could also cause these differences. For instance, in the graph you show there is a definite increase after the gun ban, but that increase started before the gun ban, and can easily be seen as a process that was already going on, as the homicides per year had been increasing clearly since 1967.
Third, you need a large sample size to say anything meaningful as any fluctuations could just as easily occur due to coincidence or simple incidents. A large sample size means that comparing a single country to a single country over a few years is not enough.

And lastly these exact statistics have been discussed to death in this topic already. Go read the rest of this topic and the discussion of those statistics before trying to apply your stilted logic to the stats.

 

[Aphyosis]

3. I watch the COPS show sometimes. If a guy is on drugs, the taser doesn't work.

I think that's capsicum/pepper spray your talking about. As far as im aware, Tasers function by causing muscle spasms via a electric current. That's pretty indifferent to if your on drugs, pissed or high.

 

[Blakut]

I think most of the conflict on this topic arises from the fact that non-americans talk to americans about guns.

Shure, in Europe you can make do without them, it's a different culture. You cannot ban guns in America. Criminals will get them easily and shoot you. More people owning guns (responsibly) in the States means a safer place.

More people owning guns in Europe usually means an unsafe place to live... especially in Eastern Europe.

If they had guns like in the US the population of my country would drop by 50% over night.

 

[Harold]

Eh..no, you didn't. That was my point. Your 'logical argument' was based on a premise that you pretend is universally accepted, but actually isn't: that the government is just trying to put the people down, and the people should be allowed to do whatever they want.

I didn't say the people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I said they should be allowed to own whatever they want.

I'm not making that decision for you. The government is.

And what right do they have?

And the government is elected by the people so then by extension, the people are telling you you can't own guns.

They are elected by the people, then they are making whatever laws they want and justify it by manipulating the uneducated masses with propaganda. It's certainly not the same thing as if everyone in the country got to vote YES or NO for the question: "Should everyone be allowed to have guns?"

And in most of those countries, if you really want to, you can still own a gun.

Not any type of gun.

fal·la·cy
–noun,plural-cies.
Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

Your argument has many of them but the main one is the bare assertion fallacy. Since you apparently didn't read the article I linked you to I'll post the definition:
The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.

OK, you win the dictionary contest.

Weapons are designed to empower people who feel powerless, it helps them overcome their personal insecurities – the same way ageing woman will Botox their faces…why not just try to empower yourself by becoming a better person.

Yeah, because it's not like guns are used for anything else than penis-enlargement. Trust me when I say that I would much rather live in a country that's so safe that I wouldn't feel the need to own a gun.

You really do love isolated statistics, don't you?

First you ask for proof. Then you dismiss it as easily as that. Having a discussion with you sure is a waste of time, for neither logic nor evidence has any effect whatsoever. Either the arguments are not good enough or the evidence isn't. You might aswell be talking to a wall.

 

[Sander]

I didn't say the people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I said they should be allowed to own whatever they want.

That's not a big distinction, and I can't exactly see how you justify that morally. Should they be allowed to buy items produced by slavery?

And this doesn't address your basic logical problem: you pretend that this is a universally accepted axiom. It is not.

And what right do they have?

The people gave them that right in elections.

They are elected by the people, then they are making whatever laws they want and justify it by manipulating the uneducated masses with propaganda. It's certainly not the same thing as if everyone in the country got to vote YES or NO for the question: "Should everyone be allowed to have guns?"

No it isn't. But you're acting as if these politicians just get to do whatever they want and then not be held accountable at the next elections. Nonsense.

OK, you win the dictionary contest.

Strike 1 for trolling.

First you ask for proof. Then you dismiss it as easily as that. Having a discussion with you sure is a waste of time, for neither logic nor evidence has any effect whatsoever. Either the arguments are not good enough or the evidence isn't. You might aswell be talking to a wall.

Oh the irony.
If you had bothered to read my entire post, or as I've been saying continually in this debate the rest of this damn thread you would notice that I explain rationally why isolating a single statistic without context is not proof.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Really? So people sharpened knives like 2000 years ago to cut meat in their kithen?

Yeah, that was in the middle of the iron age. People have been "sharpening knives" to "cut meat" for many thousands of years. Knives were not originally used as weapons, they were used as tools. Clubs and spears (particularly spears) were the most popular ancient weapon and, if I'm not mistaken, both predate knives. The oldest spear we know of is a 400,000 year old wooden one, and archaeologists believe it's likely that humans were using spears as long as 5 million years ago. But it's all rather irrelevant to the discussion about guns.

 

[the_cpl]

3. I watch the COPS show sometimes. If a guy is on drugs, the taser doesn't work.

I think that's capsicum/pepper spray your talking about. As far as im aware, Tasers function by causing muscle spasms via a electric current. That's pretty indifferent to if your on drugs, pissed or high.

Pepper spray too. But I did see several clips in the show, where they teased a guy like 4 times, because the first few times didn't stop him.

I think most of the conflict on this topic arises from the fact that non-americans talk to americans about guns.

I'm not American. I have just "common sense".

More people owning guns in Europe usually means an unsafe place to live... especially in Eastern Europe.

There is no proof. The guns are banned there, but the criminals have guns anyway. So the Eastern European countries are dangerous, becuase the self defense firearms are banned.
But look at Saudi Arabia. They have AKs all over, but the crime rates are low. It's not about guns, it's about acting normal. If people don't want to do crimes with their guns, they can have guns, they live a peaceful life with them.

Really? So people sharpened knives like 2000 years ago to cut meat in their kithen?

Yeah, that was in the middle of the iron age. People have been "sharpening knives" to "cut meat" for many thousands of years. Knives were not originally used as weapons, they were used as tools. Clubs and spears (particularly spears) were the most popular ancient weapon and, if I'm not mistaken, both predate knives. The oldest spear we know of is a 400,000 year old wooden one, and archaeologists believe it's likely that humans were using spears as long as 5 million years ago. But it's all rather irrelevant to the discussion about guns.

Sure, they used spears 5million years ago. Because they had no knives. The moders spear is like a stick with a knife on it. There is another question. If the spears are more dangerous than the knives, why don't the criminals using spears and not knives? Because the knives are better weapons. I talk about the modern times, not about the stone age.
But sure, you are right, people used many kind of weapons. Back then they used spears for hunting and self defense (too), now we have rifles for hunting, self defense and target shooting, etc.

 

[Blakut]

There is no proof. The guns are banned there, but the criminals have guns anyway. So the Eastern European countries are dangerous, becuase the self defense firearms are banned.

No they don't. And those who do have them don't use them.

In my capital city, only one or two persons died from gunfire in the last 15 years. Also, almost no real guns where used in crimes.

Criminals know that if they use guns, they're toast: the police/military would hunt them down quickly. It is too dangerous, even for criminals, to use a gun. They know it's overkill, and it is a great risk to them. A robber with a knife won't receive as much attention lika robber with a gun.

Every criminal that has ever used a gun in my country was caught real quick.

That is why guns in my country would be a bad idea. But i totally undestand the Americans.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Pepper spray too. But I did see several clips in the show, where they teased a guy like 4 times, because the first few times didn't stop him.

That probably has far more to do with his clothing than him being on drugs. With sufficient insulation anyone can avoid being electrocuted.

Sure, they used spears 5million years ago. Because they had no knives. The moders spear is like a stick with a knife on it. There is another question. If the spears are more dangerous than the knives, why don't the criminals using spears and not knives? Because the knives are better weapons. I talk about the modern times, not about the stone age.

Knives have been and continue to be used only as weapons of stealth and ritual. Spears were used as primary weapons long after knives were made, in fact knives have never been primary weapons of any military. The reason that spears, or most any other large melee weapon, aren't used by criminals is due to their size (might as well use a rifle or smg if you're going to lug around a spear or sword).

People use knives for similar reasons that they use handguns, concealment (risk) and they use knives instead of handguns for the additional reasons of cost and minimal/no risk upon discovery by law enforcement (or others).

 

[Aphyosis]

Pepper spray too. But I did see several clips in the show, where they teased a guy like 4 times, because the first few times didn't stop him.

I think its more likely the barbs didn't go in or the taser failed to discharge. I've been electrocuted before and im very doubtful drugs would stop it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

what ever if gun laws are a good or bad thing.

But at least such things havnt happend around here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc[/youtube]

While we have crime which involve weapons too it really doesnt happen that much. Particularly not in such a violant manner with machineguns and what ever else you can get ...

 

[Sander]

what ever if gun laws are a good or bad thing.

But at least such things havnt happend around here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc[/youtube]

While we have crime which involve weapons too it really doesnt happen that much. Particularly not in such a violant manner with machineguns and what ever else you can get ...

Yeah, and that shit happens daily in the US, right?

Yees, Crni, talk about bullshit argument.

 

[Blakut]

Yeah, and that shit happens daily in the US, right?

Come on, you have to admit that school shootings and street shootouts receive a lot of attention. And they do happen in places with guns.

As you can see, the murder rates for the US aren't really that high compared to the rest of the world, but are higher compared to european countries.

 

[Sander]

Come on, you have to admit that school shootings and street shootouts receive a lot of attention. And they do happen in places with guns.

Like Sweden and Germany last year?

As you can see, the murder rates for the US aren't really that high compared to the rest of the world, but are higher compared to european countries.

There are a lot more differences between European countries and the US than gun control, and there are a lot of internal differences within Europe and the US too.
Correlation is not the same as causality.

 

[Blakut]

Correlation is not the same as causality.

I've never said otherwise. Gun control in the US is not gonna work. Gun control in EU works just fine...

 

[the_cpl]

There is no proof. The guns are banned there, but the criminals have guns anyway. So the Eastern European countries are dangerous, becuase the self defense firearms are banned.

No they don't. And those who do have them don't use them.

In my capital city, only one or two persons died from gunfire in the last 15 years. Also, almost no real guns where used in crimes.

I read the European news too. I see many guncrimes. Sure, not as many as in the US, but many.

About the taser, people can get harth attack because tasering. That's why there are states in the US where the tasers are banned.

what ever if gun laws are a good or bad thing.

But at least such things havnt happend around here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc[/youtube]

While we have crime which involve weapons too it really doesnt happen that much. Particularly not in such a violant manner with machineguns and what ever else you can get ...

Fail. I just posted a link about how a 17 years old girl killed 30 men with a knife. That makes her several times more dangerous than this Hollywood shooting.

Gun control in EU works just fine...

Not really. As far as I read the news, the criminals are killing each other even with hand grenades. How is that "works just fine"?

 

[Blakut]

Dude, i don't know what news you read. But i can assure you that if you leave Ukraine and maybe Serbia out of it, it's pretty calm down here.

Most murders are attempted ones because people use knives and axes, failing to kill their victims most of the time.

It's a different mentality in Europe. This coming from a culture that started two world wars might seem funny enough, but it's true...

 

[Sander]

Not really. As far as I read the news, the criminals are killing each other even with hand grenades. How is that "works just fine"?

So, where exactly would that be? Europe isn't one homogenous unit, there are vast difference between countries.

Most murders are attempted ones because people use knives and axes, failing to kill their victims most of the time.

Yeah, this isn't all that truthful either. There are certainly violent crime and deaths here.

Also, there were at least 2 school shootings last year. One in Sweden and one in Germany, and I"m fairly certain there were more.

 

[Blakut]

Yeah, only Japan has school stabbings tho... right?