First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Firearm Legislation in the United States
Banned
1789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 4/22/13

marmondesu wrote:

Mister Vici. I was under the impression bullets had a great deal to do with killing people. I think personally there should be a background check on ammunition sales and chemical taggants in all black and smokeless powder tracing the lot number so that if its used in bombs like the ones in Boston you can immediately trace it back to the point of sale and hopefully apprehend cowardly bastards that much swifter. The NRA has made it illeagal for anything other than plastic explosives to have chemical taggants. Why? They literally oppose adding the people on the United States Terror Watch list to the current background check system! Why? Its more than that I don't see a valid argument I want to know why we allow a lobby that supports terrorism in the United States?


Ma'am to you, can't you read? Bullets can save as well---the police force use bullets. Like i mentioned before, Don't blame the gun, blame the people (person).

With that said, if it was that easy 'Murica would've been doing it. But its so easy to get guns on the black market these days. Hell one of my classmates was selling a gun.

Also I heard in the Boston Marathon the bombers used "crude bombs". Yes you can make your own bomb by using a bunch of fetilizer and bleach. How're you going to slap a chemical taggant on that?
28 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/13

Spazticus wrote:


jicicle wrote:

Absolutely no infringements on my right to buy , own, or use any man portable weapon system.


(Bolded emphasis mine)

Yes, because the general public has a need for Stinger missiles, RPGs, or mortars, for, y'know, personal home defense. Just in case the census taker or tax collector comes knocking, right? Your paranoia is astounding.


This is called an "Ad Hominem" argument. It is meaningless. Also "straw man." Also meaningless. How can anyone argue with you when you are ignorant of logical reasoning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

For your enlightenment, the Waco Massacre would have never happened if the Branch Davidians had RPGs because the FedGov would not have dared to murder 76 men, women, and children. Is that paranoid enough for you?
22561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 4/22/13 , edited 4/22/13
The logic of my argument is twofold.

First, yes, there are plenty of responsible owners of firearms, who are law abiding, won't commit violent crimes in their lifetimes, and do not present any direct threat to society; I take no issue with them! They're the reasonable ones, because they understand that personal self defense only goes so far as defending their corner of the world, without threatening or infringing on anyone else in the process. Self defense is not a justification for avoiding to pay taxes, because that is a social contract with the country in which one lives.

Secondly, you have people who are negligent, irresponsible or outright criminal with their gun ownership, and they're literally ruining it for everyone else. "No infringements" as you put it, also allows for these groups or individuals to run rampant, and cause greater harm to society. Never mind the fact that there are people like Alex Jones feeding the paranoia, to the point where people fly planes into buildings because they don't want to pay their taxes. The problem with this is that easily manipulated people with access to heavy weapons are far more of a threat to me than any responsible, rational human.

Bear in mind, Alex Jones also stated that "nerds are one of the most dangerous threats in this country" because, and I quote: "they use their brains to hurt people." Because, somehow that's rational. Oh, and he declares a large percentage of this site's viewership to be a threat. And what do fearful people who perceive a threat do? They turn their weapons on that threat, even if it is a straw man.

Video evidence, for anyone who doesn't believe me. You shouldn't be able to make this shit up, but he manages to do so on a regular basis. www.youtube.com/watch?&v=iQpD9LolO-k
62143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/23/13 , edited 4/23/13
First, I wanted to thank the moderators on the forums for keeping the thread clean of some of the troll posts that have been creeping up. namely they have been one liners and such that just aim to instigate. second, I'd like to thank the forum members that have actually giving a position, given their argument to support that position, and graciously responding to people when they are making counters to individual ideas within that position.

I wasn't sure how this thread would go, but it's ended up really having a high level of critical thinking involved. Thanks a ton!







jicicle wrote:


Spazticus wrote:


jicicle wrote:

Absolutely no infringements on my right to buy , own, or use any man portable weapon system.


(Bolded emphasis mine)

Yes, because the general public has a need for Stinger missiles, RPGs, or mortars, for, y'know, personal home defense. Just in case the census taker or tax collector comes knocking, right? Your paranoia is astounding.


This is called an "Ad Hominem" argument. It is meaningless. Also "straw man." Also meaningless. How can anyone argue with you when you are ignorant of logical reasoning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

For your enlightenment, the Waco Massacre would have never happened if the Branch Davidians had RPGs because the FedGov would not have dared to murder 76 men, women, and children. Is that paranoid enough for you?


Ad hominem is when someone makes a statment:


A implies B

And you refute that statement by something like:

He's a moron, therefore A does not imply B.

That being said, You made the statement that there should be absolutely no infringement on your right to own any weapon system. You never made an argument, you made a statement. You then linked in some links from sources that no scholarly institution would allow in any sort of proper debate.


What he did was create an from your statement, one that he could refute.


In other words, your statement was, for all intents and purposes, completely illogical.

I'll be honest, there is no way to respond to your post without going through thousands of paragraphs of OTHER people's opinions, OTHER people's analysis of the situation, and OTHER peoples investigations and allegations.

I would like it if you could give us your ideas, your opinions, and your explanations for the different statistical and legal implications as to why you believe that you should have the right to any weapon. No one has the time nor the patience to go through those links and tell you how most of the information provided is either skewed, not relevant, or does not actually support the opinion that is given. I'll just give you a hint, nearly every statistic that you hear about gun control or being compared to gun control is crap, with raw data being analysed incorrectly in favor of whatever side it is being used for. Try using ideological reasons that can be argued.








Spazticus wrote:

The logic of my argument is twofold.

First, yes, there are plenty of responsible owners of firearms, who are law abiding, won't commit violent crimes in their lifetimes, and do not present any direct threat to society; I take no issue with them! They're the reasonable ones, because they understand that personal self defense only goes so far as defending their corner of the world, without threatening or infringing on anyone else in the process. Self defense is not a justification for avoiding to pay taxes, because that is a social contract with the country in which one lives.

Secondly, you have people who are negligent, irresponsible or outright criminal with their gun ownership, and they're literally ruining it for everyone else. "No infringements" as you put it, also allows for these groups or individuals to run rampant, and cause greater harm to society. Never mind the fact that there are people like Alex Jones feeding the paranoia, to the point where people fly planes into buildings because they don't want to pay their taxes. The problem with this is that easily manipulated people with access to heavy weapons are far more of a threat to me than any responsible, rational human.

Bear in mind, Alex Jones also stated that "nerds are one of the most dangerous threats in this country" because, and I quote: "they use their brains to hurt people." Because, somehow that's rational. Oh, and he declares a large percentage of this site's viewership to be a threat. And what do fearful people who perceive a threat do? They turn their weapons on that threat, even if it is a straw man.

Video evidence, for anyone who doesn't believe me. You shouldn't be able to make this shit up, but he manages to do so on a regular basis.



I'd rather not argue against someone who can only cite another source for his opinion tbh. I want to give him a chance to formulate his own ideological reasoning for what he believes, so I won't requests that his posts be removed, but at the same time, Lets try not to get to irate about him just linking random unverified websites as the basis of his opinion. I went ahead and tore apart his 'logic' for you at any rate.





28 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/13

metalsmith wrote:


jicicle wrote:


Spazticus wrote:


jicicle wrote:

Absolutely no infringements on my right to buy , own, or use any man portable weapon system.


(Bolded emphasis mine)
Yes, because the general public has a need for Stinger missiles, RPGs, or mortars, for, y'know, personal home defense. Just in case the census taker or tax collector comes knocking, right? Your paranoia is astounding.

This is called an "Ad Hominem" argument. It is meaningless. Also "straw man." Also meaningless. How can anyone argue with you when you are ignorant of logical reasoning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

For your enlightenment, the Waco Massacre would have never happened if the Branch Davidians had RPGs because the FedGov would not have dared to murder 76 men, women, and children. Is that paranoid enough for you?

Ad hominem is when someone makes a statment:
A implies B

And you refute that statement by something like:
He's a moron, therefore A does not imply B.

That being said, You made the statement that there should be absolutely no infringement on your right to own any weapon system. You never made an argument, you made a statement. You then linked in some links from sources that no scholarly institution would allow in any sort of proper debate.


What he did was create an from your statement, one that he could refute.

In other words, your statement was, for all intents and purposes, completely illogical.

I'll be honest, there is no way to respond to your post without going through thousands of paragraphs of OTHER people's opinions, OTHER people's analysis of the situation, and OTHER peoples investigations and allegations.

The red text is strawman. The purple text is ad hominim (also the gratuitous image). I posted the wikipedia links so everyone would be clear that those statements are logical fallacies.

Ad hominem is when someone makes a statment:
A implies B

This is not ad hominem. What am I supposed to think when someone does not understand the definition of a logical fallacy even when I post a link to a definition?

What he did was create an from your statement, one that he could refute.

This is the DEFINITION of "strawman"!!! Since you can not understand that this is a logical fallacy you are not worth talking to.

This link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/wikileaks-kissinger-cables-bradley-manning quotes a US government cabinet member stating he has no regard for the law or the constitution. The Guardian is certainly a valid academic source.

This link: http://trevoraaronson.com/book/ exposes that the US government enthusiastically encourages entrapment, lying by law enforcement, and general dirty tricks against US citizens. Please explain how published books are not valid academic sources?

This link: http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/ describes a suit in a U.S. District Court where the court confirmed the US government violated the US constitution. How can you POSSIBLY say a decision by a U.S. District Court is not a valid academic source????

These are just a VERY FEW examples of the FedGov opressing the citizens of the USA. If you are not extremely disturbed by these examples there is no point in arguing. You have accepted slavery. You believe (but I do not) that it is acceptable to surrender your ability to protect yourself and accept death because that is better for society as a whole. I believe that philosophy is suited only to insects, not human beings.


17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/28/13
What is the woman's chances in stopping two or three guy who is braking into her house wen they have Baseball Bats, if she has no gun? Do you think she be able to call the cops and have them save her before they kill her and rob the place.. or more drag her with them and rape her .. or do you think a knife or pepper spray will stop three guys with bats from braking in to a house to rape and steal from them?

Most guns that kill are from the black market not paid for so your only end up taking away the peoples power from fighting back against real criminals.
62143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 4/29/13 , edited 4/29/13

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

What is the woman's chances in stopping two or three guy who is braking into her house wen they have Baseball Bats, if she has no gun? Do you think she be able to call the cops and have them save her before they kill her and rob the place.. or more drag her with them and rape her .. or do you think a knife or pepper spray will stop three guys with bats from braking in to a house to rape and steal from them?

Most guns that kill are from the black market not paid for so your only end up taking away the peoples power from fighting back against real criminals.


Read the thread. We are not saying that guns should be removed from households. If the women needs 120 rounds in a drum to hit 2 guys with baseball bats from 10 feet away in a presumably narrow hallway near the front door, then there are some other issues.







First of all, your original statement was not an argument. It could not be refuted. It was nothing more than a statement of opinion. As such, any response to it cannot be a logical dilemma as there was no logic in it in the first place. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the difference between an argument and a statement, you can't begin to talk about logic fallacies.

Second, okay, the guardian is a legitimate source of information. The other sources? One is a book that I can't read, nor will I buy. The third, a court case from 2005, shortly after Katrina hit new orleans. I'm sorry, but shit happens when a massive city is flooded completely over and the majority of it's population displaced. There were several thousand National Guard troops trying to tone down the level of looting in the city as well. I'll have to say that it wasn't the correct choice, but that entire situation was mishandled. It is also well documented and many things have changed since then for the better. For example, the response to the boston marathon bombings.

Third, the waco massacre. Why would it have been better if they had been so well armed that they could fend off the US military? You mention that 76 people were killed, including many women and children. You fail to mention that it was a religious cult and that the fire was suspected to have been started by the cultists themselves. You failed to mention that it was brought on because a UPS delivery man had concerns that they had received GRENADES in the mail. You also failed to mention that the man in charge was marrying 12 year olds and conceiving children with them. You also failed to mention that he claimed the rights to any women on the premises for himself, and that he also wanted 140 wives. There are constitutional limits, and this placed crossed them severely. Why the hell would I want them armed to the teeth? Why not just invite the taliban to set up a base in texas as well? Let them mail order all the effing guns they want, they can set up a base of operations right smack dab in the middle of the US perfectly legally. They didn't do anything wrong, they just want to defend themselves. by that, i mean defend their ideals by destroying anyone who doesn't believe in them. And why not? Freedom of speech right?

You accuse us of being strawmen? What about yourself? There is so much more to those situations that what you bring up. You don't explain the reasoning for those misconducts. You don't explore the situations that allowed them to happen, and you don't explore the changes to policy that come about because of them. In other words, you find something, point some blame, even though they have been made moot because the people that made those decisions, in some cases, are gone. The situations have been put under INTENSE scrutiny, and the problems from them identified and solutions put in place.




in other words, your entire argument is moot point. The system has already seen each of those events (over the course of 20 years!!!!) and each time has changed itself to better prevent the wrong doings from happening again.


You want to have a gun for self defense? fine. have a pistol with a 10 round clip. Can't hit your target with that pistol with 10 rounds? you either need practice, the target is too far away to be a threat, or you are in a situation where you are quite obviously in the wrong for something because you have more than 10 people around you who want you dead.

22561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 4/29/13 , edited 4/29/13

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

What is the woman's chances in stopping two or three guy who is braking into her house wen they have Baseball Bats, if she has no gun? Do you think she be able to call the cops and have them save her before they kill her and rob the place.. or more drag her with them and rape her .. or do you think a knife or pepper spray will stop three guys with bats from braking in to a house to rape and steal from them?

Most guns that kill are from the black market not paid for so your only end up taking away the peoples power from fighting back against real criminals.


I'd like to see which statistics you're using for your argument, because domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to involve in death than those involving bodily force. Interesting you also mention protecting women here, since they are three and a half times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner, compared to men.

According to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine: "Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8-fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists."

Further: "Homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group. Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner."

More analysis from this research and others here, published by Johns Hopkins: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf

Also, according to the Department of Justice, between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides. That's right, almost half of the people in relationships, who had been murdered during these years, were killed by their partner. The statistics just do not support the notion that easier access to guns will reduce the trend of domestic violence.

No, not when a 2004 survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm. In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim. And the numbers are typical in domestic violence cases nationwide. (Source: American Journal of Public Health)

I can go on, but the data I'm seeing just isn't supporting your argument. I'm also not suggesting the banning of guns either, but the other extreme ("no infringements", as one of the other posters put it) is neither viable nor beneficial to society. Not everyone is mentally fit and responsible enough to own, much less use, a firearm.
Sailor Candy Moderator
164343 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 10/25/13
Closed due inactivity. 0 new posts in months. Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.