Gun Control

DeletedUser15641

I apologize for not having the time for a rebuttal. Hectic times ...
I only wanted to post this for now and to say: I'm sad is virtual, but I'm glad someone posted it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

YouTube isn't considered official, please have an official site or as I said about Google scholar.

Your defense against gun control doesn't have reliability which means that its not credible to be believed.

Edit:the video is fine tiger, I used my phone.

Well, gun control is for less big guns not the small pistols with permits.

Big guns such as machine guns, rifles and that should stop some violence.

Could you add official statistics of deaths from government statistics which should prove his or your allegations?

If you claim them as inaccurate, please provide private statistics and the statistics of it years before.

Thank you very much anyways.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I heard and understood all of it. Might be a problem with your computer.

Probably, I'll try again.

Okay, watched it, he starts off with a reasonable point about tackling underlying American attitudes towards violence in general. Which is a fair point.
He then proceeds to go off on a lengthy metaphor comparing gun control to taking the horns of a gazelle that is being chased by a leopard. Usual rubbish, 'guns for self defence' etc etc.
After that, he begins talking about assault weapons. As TUG said, I would like to see his sources for that. Otherwise it's just the ramblings of a delusional....oh wait. Woops. My bad. :)
Then an anecdote (with no source), then ramblings about the constitution.
Then more statistics, with no source again. :rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Walter Greer again.


Interesting, especially that point about life expectancy.

Oh btw, Duduie, we're all still waiting for your rebuttal to HS' post.
 

DeletedUser

Oh btw, Duduie, we're all still waiting for your rebuttal to HS' post.
Hold your britches not your breath. RL has priority right now. Did not find the time to read the entire post. If it won't be to late, it'll come at a later date, it'll have to wait. I thought it was my duty to apologize for the lengthy wait, but it is not my duty to explain myself to you, which you are forcing me to do.

@TUG: I like how you consider the media to be official, when all it does is to serve the president's agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDOF18xbb0
And that is not the only time it happened. Is just one of the more obvious ones. Subliminal anti-gun messages are in most TV shows right now.
 

DeletedUser

Hold your britches not your breath. RL has priority right now. Did not find the time to read the entire post.

And earlier you were accusing me of not reading other peoples posts.... :p

@TUG: I like how you consider the media to be official, when all it does is to serve the president's agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDOF18xbb0

I will agree with you there, the vast majority of mainstream media is corrupt and/or politically biased (in either direction) in one way or another.

And that is not the only time it happened. Is just one of the more obvious ones. Subliminal anti-gun messages are in most TV shows right now.

Of course! Subliminal messaging! Firstly, subliminal messaging hasn't been proven to work, and secondly, could you please provide some actual examples of 'anti-gun subliminal messaging?'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Ok, i've been reading this thread when i can ... RL taken too much of my time since the turn of the year.

Any hows ...

I live in UK, but honestly - if i lived in the US and by law i was legal to obtain and carry a firearm - i would. Now, this could be put down to media, movies etc etc - who knows ... We get a lot of your (US) stuff over here and maybe that over the years made up my mind. (maybe just scared of Duduie!!)

But yes, i would own firearms for me and my family's personal protection. (i feel sad saying that)

In respect to the topic ... A somewhat middle ground will be met ....

Will this stop the recent terrible events again = No
Will US gun crime go down = No
If Obama's gun controls go through, will it effect gun crime = No
If Obama's gun controls go through, will it effect future gun crime = possibly

I watched a few mins of Dud's last video - i turned off after the man said the deer should cut off its horns....

We are not animals. We are humans, we are worse than animals in sooo many ways.

Duduie - if you want to keep your semi auto rifle - good for you ... i would probably do the same.

Just my opinion x
 

DeletedUser

just a few articles to reinvigorate the debate:

Study links gun laws and lower gun mortality - "States with the most gun laws experienced a lower overall mortality rate from firearms than did states with the fewest laws, researchers in Boston reported in a study published Wednesday." ~ http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/guns-laws-mortality/index.html

NRA's LaPierre slams Obama administration over gun proposals - "According to LaPierre, an arrogant political and media elite wants to subvert the bedrock right to freedom that he said made America better than other countries. He repeatedly questioned the logic and even the sanity of President Barack Obama's administration and other advocates of new gun laws, and he implored supporters to "stand up and fight" now and in future elections to protect their right to own guns." ~ http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/pol-cpac-lapierre/index.html

Senate panel passes ban on assault-style weapons "In a meeting rife with angry and emotional exchanges, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a new ban on semiautomatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons. The measure now goes to the full Senate for consideration as part of a package of gun measures prompted by a Connecticut school massacre last December that killed 20 first graders. However, the proposed ban has little chance of becoming law due to fierce opposition by the National Rifle Association and a certain GOP filibuster." ~ http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/politics/senate-assault-weapons/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser35409

Country biggest for gun crime is ... the ones that have no gun control... the less they have generally the more problems they also have ... its as simple as that...

What ive always found amusing is the argument for semi and automatic weapons and all that other hardware some have.. seriously if you think you need an Uzi or an M16 rather than say a simple rifle, hand gun or single shot weapon you must be nuts.

Some seriously paranoid goofballs out there that think protection and rights extend to having an arsenal in the basement...Whats all that about, in case your back yard is invaded by a foreign army ?

The statements you make are just not true, Victor.

In fact, the opposite is true. The more gun control the more the violence. There are hundreds upon hundreds of sociological studies and reams of data to support the antithesis of your statement.

Try the book by author John Lott 'More Guns, Less Crime'.

Switzerland for example is a fairly peaceful place, all secreted away and with citizens whistling and whatnot but gun ownership is high because of their legal mandates. Everywhere in the USA where gun laws are restrictive violent crime is high. I understand that a correlation isn't causation but after so much research an inductive argument can be solidly made in my favor here. After all, criminals are.......well, they're criminals. They don't behave to the laws. (and most of these highly publicized shootings that the media loves to feed us involve guns NOT covered by any law or PROPOSED LAW)

However I prefer not to argue against the anti-gun crowd merely with facts as it has become apparent that logically that is not what their motivation of position is. The banner of the argument for gun ownership should be hoisted over the field of natural rights and moral argument.

I'm still waiting for a rational man to explain to me why he has the right to initiate forceupon my person in an effort to further his anti-gun schemes and anyone that thinks they have the right to arrogate to the state the authority to seize, regulate, stop purchase of, or restrict our gun ownership should state WHY and HOW and moreover admit that he is using another set of GUNS to accomplish his goals.

This time it's just him relying upon the state to do his dirty work while the pretenses of life can go on for him who perhaps doesn't face existentially threats that some face, especially those that are poor and women who may be alone and need that sort of security.

By the way, it should be obvious to any reader that a career criminal doesn't give a DAMN whether he breaks the law if he's invading your home. That's what they ARE.
 

DeletedUser

Hi Funny Bone, nice post. Unfortunately it seems you haven't really read anything in this thread and, to be quite honest, you provided no supporting evidence. If you look at the post just prior to yours, you'll find refutation to your claim of reports indicating less violence when people are armed:

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=674009&postcount=400

This is part of the problem. A lot of statements, but no supporting evidence. It is the means to pose propaganda, but not the means to factual discussion. Anyway, as I find myself tempted to repeat myself, instead I will link to posts I made in this thread. And while many others posed valid arguments, I'm here to represent my thoughts and insights, not that of others. Right, anyway, here it is, posted in order of relevance:

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=665041&postcount=292
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=665226&postcount=311

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=667923&postcount=385
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=667875&postcount=378

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=646496&postcount=33

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=646762&postcount=42
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=649838&postcount=90

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=650100&postcount=94

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=654694&postcount=130
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=654732&postcount=137
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=654749&postcount=139

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=661702&postcount=180

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=662078&postcount=210

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=662143&postcount=220
 

DeletedUser35409

All of the evidence that is available supports my thesis. 'Evidence' in this thread and claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

I'm dealing with reality outside of a simple forum. This is what most people call the real world.
 

DeletedUser

Thank you for your bit of ramble. Can you provide this evidence, or shall we take your word for it?
 

DeletedUser35409

I have adduced it via reference already. And I was kind enough to claim that the causality of it (like most inductive arguments) could be disputed.

However the evidence, to my mind, is so overwhelmingly proven that I claim it as a fact of theory in regard to current American culture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Respect Mr FB for trying to frame a reasonable argument, but failing on several counts.
Let's look at a few:
The more gun control the more the violence.
Whoa, stop right there. Can you see now what a nonsensical statement that is?
Maybe you meant "gun-related deaths" instead of "violence" because as it stands the statement implies that gun regulation actually makes people become more violent, which is patently absurd.
Even allowing for your poor framing, can you seriously be saying that criminal background checks, waiting periods, mental health checks, registration etc. actually endanger us more by their presence than their absence and you would abolish all that regulation? Because if you're not saying that then your statement would be wrong even by your own standards.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of sociological studies and reams of data to support the antithesis of your statement.
And probably hundreds to the contrary. Unless you present them for evaluation you can't rely on them for argument.


Switzerland for example is a fairly peaceful place,
.....etc.
But the Swiss have MASSIVE regulation - a private citizen can't even own ammo. It flat contradicts your central argument. Proportionally to all crime and suicide they also have a higher gun component than neighbouring countries, which kinda indicates that without the guns they'd be even safer.
After all, criminals are.......well, they're criminals. They don't behave to the laws. (and most of these highly publicized shootings that the media loves to feed us involve guns NOT covered by any law or PROPOSED LAW)
You're repeating the earlier and much-corrected error that high-profile killings and criminal behaviour are somehow connected. They are not.
And, honestly, you would rather the media didn't highlight these massacres? Isn't there a switch on your tv?

However I prefer not to argue against the anti-gun crowd merely with facts
rofl :D

I'm still waiting for a rational man to explain to me why he has the right to initiate forceupon my person in an effort to further his anti-gun schemes and anyone that thinks they have the right to arrogate to the state the authority to seize, regulate, stop purchase of, or restrict our gun ownership should state WHY and HOW and moreover admit that he is using another set of GUNS to accomplish his goals.
What about MY right to enjoy life, which any random miscreant could end with a firearm if he was allowed to carry one. I would use an Abrams tank if necessary to protect that.
And, also, "we the people" are sovereign and thus, so is our government. The authority of a properly constituted state is not, and should not be, limited.

I really didn't want to come back to this inteminable debate but sometimes assertions are made that are so preposterous I just can't restrain myself.:(
 

DeletedUser28032

Using the argument of "A state with fewer gun laws has fewer gun related crimes committed within it" is kind of like saying that a country with no drug laws has zero drug related crime. Its still happening the only difference is that in this particular country nobodies prosecuting you for it.
Same as if I was to make blue cars illegal then we'd have the highest amount of "blue car crime" within the UK.
Basicly you need a univeral set of gun laws instead of the current mish mash you seem to have at the moment.
 

DeletedUser15641

It shouldn't be limited to humans? It shouldn't even have a limit not even any gun for mental sickness even the peeps who are having sons who are smart, mental, or even possible mentally sick child.

My opinion :)
 

DeletedUser34315

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB42cMHgriM

Interesting video, and it's surprisingly easy to make a firearm, albeit not as good of one as a modern gun.

Hypothetically, i wonder how one of these would perform in some sort of a combat situation?
If the person using this attacked an unarmed person, I'd think it'd be quite effective, especially if the barrel was shortened, and the stock reduced to a pistol grip.
 
Top