The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.....

[Dastardly]

I bolded out the important part of my post here.
Higher population isn't related to crimes per capita.

You're assuming there's a strictly linear relationship between population and the number of "crazy people" in it. That kind of extrapolation provides misleading results, and is generally used to oversimplify the situation.

For instance, when comparing the US to Norway, you're failing to take into account:

1. The size of the countries: It's a lot harder to enforce laws in a nation that is many times larger, geographically speaking. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it really does have an impact.

2. The population density: We've got a lot of tightly-packed cities. While on its own this doesn't seem like much, it starts to matter a lot when you consider...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

Cram this many different races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, and socioeconomic groups into one place, packed even tighter in cities, with a police presence that is spread wafer-thin, and tell me that doesn't have some impact on the violent crime rate.

 

[Cette]

snipped

Ok the lack of oversight on gun show sales is bullshit and something I think most people agree should be looked at and I'd personally like to see outright held to gun store standards. Stringent background checks including psychological history are also good and shouldn't hurt many people who should be trusted with firearms to begin with so that's all good right there. Also with a reasonable number set limiting the amount of guns sold in a given time frame isn't a terrible idea either. I've seen as low as one per month proposed and that seemed a little harsh but there's a lot of wiggle room there.

You're losing me on this assault weapons ban and ammunition limit thing though. First of all how are we defining assault weapon and what is and isn't a hunting grade round? Most assault rifles fall into the area of "varmint" guns suitable for say coyotes and smallish to medium sized game with the 5.56 on the low end of that and the 7.62 x 39 that an AK uses being very similar in performance to say a .30-30 Winchester which is a common deer hunting round. If we're talking removing access to high capacity magazines I'd say that's not much fun but might do more good than harm so I'd entertain it. Exactly how many rounds a month are you talking allowed here and would that be across all calibers or a set amount of each? Like say if you owned Guns in five different calibers would you be allotted 30 rounds total to split between them or 30 for each.

And the full metal jacket limit is kind of a mixed bag at best. In a mass shooting the higher chance of over penetration and one round hitting multiple close targets might very well end worse than an expanding round staying in one person. Not to mention if home defense did come up the chance of a stray round going through more walls and hitting someone unintended raises.

What it takes to legally acquire the license for any full automatic gun is fairly extensive time consuming and costs a good amount of money on top of requiring a largely spotless record so what is the intent fully banning non semi auto weapons here? Not saying they're necessary mind you just that people legally buying them is fairly rare and I'm not sure is the real problem here.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

 

[Bazaalmon]

There's one point in the article I agree with that very few people (well, that I have heard shouting about how awesome guns are) seem to realize. Guns were invented for the express purpose of KILLING. It is a cannon that you hold in your hand. There's an explosion that fires a chunk of metal at super-high speeds specifically to pierce through someone or something. It is a point-and-click death machine. And there are point-and-click death machines that require you to just hold the button down to continuously spray chunks of super-speed metal over a large area. Guns exist to kill, and pretending that they have any other use is just stupid. I've heard arguments that knives are the same as guns, which is not true. You can't dice an onion with a gun. You can't whittle with a gun. You can't cut a jammed seatbelt in a sinking car with a gun. Knives are tools, guns are weapons. You can kill with a knife, but you can do so much more as well. You can kill with a gun, and do NOTHING else with it. Treating them as if they're the same is flat out wrong.

 

[Naeras]

You're assuming there's a strictly linear relationship between population and the number of "crazy people" in it. That kind of extrapolation provides misleading results, and is generally used to oversimplify the situation.

For instance, when comparing the US to Norway, you're failing to take into account:

1. The size of the countries: It's a lot harder to enforce laws in a nation that is many times larger, geographically speaking. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it really does have an impact.

2. The population density: We've got a lot of tightly-packed cities. While on its own this doesn't seem like much, it starts to matter a lot when you consider...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

Cram this many different races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, and socioeconomic groups into one place, packed even tighter in cities, with a police presence that is spread wafer-thin, and tell me that doesn't have some impact on the violent crime rate.

Of course all of those things have an impact on crime rates, and I never tried to dispute that in my post. All the things you mentioned definitely affect crime rate. However, population density and population heterogenity aren't the same thing as population size. It's a key difference.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Respect the second amendment right to own guns, but outlaw ones that serve no practical purpose except for use in violent crime. Sure, it may not be "cool" to saw assault rifles are illegal, but seriously, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?!

And how many of them are used in violent crimes, from a percentage standpoint? It's miniscule.

Er, a quibble, but, it's not miniscule, it's none, at least for legally owned assault rifles. IIRC, there have only been a handful of cases in which civilians used legally owned automatic weapons in crimes, and none of them were assault rifles.

For instance, when comparing the US to Norway, you're failing to take into account:

1. The size of the countries: It's a lot harder to enforce laws in a nation that is many times larger, geographically speaking. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it really does have an impact.

2. The population density: We've got a lot of tightly-packed cities. While on its own this doesn't seem like much, it starts to matter a lot when you consider...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

Cram this many different races, ethnicities, ideologies, religions, and socioeconomic groups into one place, packed even tighter in cities, with a police presence that is spread wafer-thin, and tell me that doesn't have some impact on the violent crime rate.

I don't buy that, that also applies to Australia, for example, which has a lot less homicides.

That's not to say the US doesn't probably have all sorts of factors other nations don't, just that those don't seem to be among them.

 

[Dastardly]

I don't buy that, that also applies to Australia, for example, which has a lot less homicides.

That's not to say the US doesn't probably have all sorts of factors other nations don't, just that those don't seem to be among them.

Not to even nearly the same degree as the US, sorry. There's just no data that indicates any statistical similarities in these regards. But, as you rightly mentioned, there are other factors. I was simply pointing out to the other poster how the concept of population composition, and how population size can amplify the problems it raises.

One also has to consider the history of the nation in question, all the way back to the start.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I think the POTUS' stance is pretty reasonable (and I didn't even vote for him! OH GOD I MUST SUCK AT POLITICS!! D. Respect the second amendment right to own guns, but outlaw ones that serve no practical purpose except for use in violent crime. Sure, it may not be "cool" to saw assault rifles are illegal, but seriously, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?! They aren't even legal hunting weapons! There is NO REASON to ever own one unless you plan on using it in a CRIME. Ted Nugent will ***** and moan, but let him! Those guys are in a serious minority.

Collectors need an assault rifle. Just like how comic collectors need all the cover variants of one shitty book, just because its collectible.
You know who else is in a minority? People who legally own assault weapons that murder people. Or that even have criminal records.
Most people don't go rafting/kayaking in rapids. The ones that do do it for the thrill, and its very dangerous even if trained properly. Just like guns. Should kayaking be illegal? should my collection of swords be illegal? Should martial arts be illegal? after all, most people aren't military or police personnel (and those that are shouldn't be in a position to need martial arts anyway) or even competition fighters. So why should we be able to walk in and learn how to beat people up better? And you can't say its for defense, because most people will never be in a position to defend themselves through hand-to-hand combat.

And that article is 75% bullshit

 

[Wayneguard]

I wonder if the author would so willingly abandon the first amendment based on Thomas Jefferson's desire for an every changing government...

3. Population heterogeneity: I live in a tiny town, yet I can't walk three steps without seeing Northern whites, Southern whites, American blacks, Caribbean blacks, Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Indians, and American Indians. I won't even mention political or religious affiliation differences within the groups. That's in one tiny town on the east coast. Norway, comparatively, is over 95% white, with over 90% of those people being native Norwegians.

This a very astute observation that people who are unfamiliar with day-to-day American life often miss. I think it's necessary to point out that there exists a racial divisiveness in this country that I don't think other countries with a more homogenous demographic have to contend with.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

There's one point in the article I agree with that very few people (well, that I have heard shouting about how awesome guns are) seem to realize. Guns were invented for the express purpose of KILLING. It is a cannon that you hold in your hand. There's an explosion that fires a chunk of metal at super-high speeds specifically to pierce through someone or something. It is a point-and-click death machine. And there are point-and-click death machines that require you to just hold the button down to continuously spray chunks of super-speed metal over a large area. Guns exist to kill, and pretending that they have any other use is just stupid. I've heard arguments that knives are the same as guns, which is not true. You can't dice an onion with a gun. You can't whittle with a gun. You can't cut a jammed seatbelt in a sinking car with a gun. Knives are tools, guns are weapons. You can kill with a knife, but you can do so much more as well. You can kill with a gun, and do NOTHING else with it. Treating them as if they're the same is flat out wrong.

First off, I wanna say how nice it is seeing another fan of the Wheel of Time series.
Secondly, a gun IS a tool. It is a tool with a violent purpose, but a tool nonetheless. A wrench has one function: to apply torque and tighten or loosen bolts. It can be used for other things, but none as well as tools designed for those other purposes.

This knife is made to kill with.

This knife is made for hunting

these knives were made to prepare food

this knife was made for whittling, and by pedigree for specifically whittling pen nubs.

See how there exist many kinds of knives with many purposes? If you cross-purpose those knives, they'll all WORK, but not as well as if you'd used the right knife.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I can't in good conscience support gun restriction anymore. Not after what happened now.

 

[aba1]

People keep saying criminals will keep getting the guns regardless of the ban but I gotta say the more and more I look I keep finding article saying that many illegal guns are made in the US. Basically the US has a large amount of illegal guns sent to other countries with 90% of illegal guns in both neighboring countries being from the US.

Also I don't get why we cannot all just agree to just have guns meant for hunting and in the hands of farmers and other people who need them for there job. I mean it is about controlling guns not outlawing all gun related things period is it not?

 

[malestrithe]

snipped

You're losing me on this assault weapons ban and ammunition limit thing though. First of all how are we defining assault weapon and what is and isn't a hunting grade round?

Let's not muddle the issue by combining two separate arguments into one. Assault weapons ban is one argument. Hunting Grade round is an irrelevant obfuscation used to muddle the issue.

Assault weapons have a specific definition according to the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004:

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

Start from there. If your rifle does not have any of those criteria, it is not an assault weapon. That means most rifles that are not assault weapons. They may have fully automatic capabilities, but if they do not have anything else, it does not count.

Notice how the definition did not include anything about grades and caliber of bullets. Why is that? Because caliber of bullet does not make something an assault weapon. That was an attempt to muddle the issue on your part.

Because you unsuccessfully tried to combine two separate arguments together, your argument is based on a flawed premise. I give you kudos for trying, however.

 

[lacktheknack]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

<youtube=jmgcjRu1s-8>

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

OT: He DOES realize that not all guns are intended to kill people, right? I didn't see him admit that.

 

[evilneko]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

Oh now you're just being silly.

[small]Well. I would've just said "wat" but you know, stupid low content rule..[/small]

 

[lacktheknack]

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

My opinion on gun control is that all the threads on it should be sent to religion and politics.

I second this notion and hope that the mods will one day head our prayers.

I was going to put this there but I was afraid that the R&P regulars would shout at me....

Well that... that I can understand.

I agree, they can be some angry people sometimes.

C'mon. We don't bite...

[small]....hard.[/small]

There's a reason I treat R&P like Ravenholm, and it has everything to do with personal experience and people threatening to set my family on fire.

Oh now you're just being silly.

[small]Well. I would've just said "wat" but you know, stupid low content rule..[/small]

HousebrokenLunatic.

He's now banned, but he stayed around long enough (a couple years, so he's not a petty troll) to permanently spoil R&P.

 

[Zaik]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Yes, but you cannot commit mass murder with a chinese throwing star.

Oddly enough, you can't commit mass murder with ONE bullet either.

Funny how that works :/

Anyway, since cracked articles are getting involved, here's one that's somewhat relevant to the topic.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19781_6-stupid-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies_p2.html

Go ahead and skip on to #1.

Weird. 95% survive? That doesn't sound very efficient for killing people.

Yay for doctors and health insurance, or something.

People keep saying criminals will keep getting the guns regardless of the ban but I gotta say the more and more I look I keep finding article saying that many illegal guns are made in the US. Basically the US has a large amount of illegal guns sent to other countries with 90% of illegal guns in both neighboring countries being from the US.

Also I don't get why we cannot all just agree to just have guns meant for hunting and in the hands of farmers and other people who need them for there job. I mean it is about controlling guns not outlawing all gun related things period is it not?

Funny story, the US is ALSO the #1 in legally exported firearms(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters).

If the US was to suddenly shut it all down, the manufacturers would just pick up shop and move over to Central America and all of the sudden all the illegal guns would be made there. Certainly wouldn't be the first industry to go that way.

 

[evilneko]

HousebrokenLunatic.

He's now banned, but he stayed around long enough (a couple years, so he's not a petty troll) to permanently spoil R&P.

Don't know him. Must've been before my time.

[small]BRB setting your house on fire.[/small]

 

[Imat]

From the comments,

"It's easier to control guns on an island"

If I see this absurd fallacy one more time my head will burst, what do people expect? Do they believe the smugglers try and swim over with their goods? For a start the UK receives over two billion tons of cargo via ISO containers each year, to search even a few percent of those containers is impossible. Then you have the ships themselves which are so massive it could take weeks to carry out a thorough search.

Then you have the thousands of small private boats and aircraft in UK territory at any moment in time.

Finally you have all of the ferries and passenger aircraft. UK borders are as porous as a countries with a land border, unless that border is completely un-monitored.

It's actually true though. Nobody said it was easy, simply easier. Searching through every shipping container sent to the US would be much harder than searching through every shipping container sent to the UK. It isn't a fallacy. It is simply a matter of greater traffic in one than the other. Is either one possible without recruiting every working man in the country for search duty? Not even a little bit.

 

[Cette]

snipped

You're losing me on this assault weapons ban and ammunition limit thing though. First of all how are we defining assault weapon and what is and isn't a hunting grade round?

Let's not muddle the issue by combining two separate arguments into one. Assault weapons ban is one argument. Hunting Grade round is an irrelevant obfuscation used to muddle the issue.

Assault weapons have a specific definition according to the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004:

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

Start from there. If your rifle does not have any of those criteria, it is not an assault weapon. That means most rifles that are not assault weapons. They may have fully automatic capabilities, but if they do not have anything else, it does not count.

Notice how the definition did not include anything about grades and caliber of bullets. Why is that? Because caliber of bullet does not make something an assault weapon. That was an attempt to muddle the issue on your part.

Because you unsuccessfully tried to combine two separate arguments together, your argument is based on a flawed premise. I give you kudos for trying, however.

"There should be a ban on assault weapons. (Only hunting caliber rifles and shotguns, along with only pistols that would count as semi-automatic not fully automatic should be legally available to the public.)"

The two issues seemed to have already been somewhat combined to me in the post I was replying to given that quote. But I'll grant you I did kinda mash my thoughts together poorly in the reply as I'd just gotten off work and was a tad scrambled still.

As for the assault weapon thing that definition comes from a law primarily outlawed things that made guns seem scarier rather than making them more lethal in any meaningful way. The high cap magazines and the collapsible stock might have had something to them but the rest was pure pandering. So forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock into the term "assault weapon."

If he hadn't brought up caliber in that section then I wouldn't have either. Personally I'm most curious as to what counts as a non hunting caliber shotgun from his perspective. Also why fully automatic pistols were singled out as opposed to other automatic weapons thus the request for clarification of stance.