I love a story with a happy ending.

blatantninja said:

The bigger picture is that the vast majority of gun owners never use their guns on another person nor do any accidents occur with their guns. But of course lets just ignore that and focus on the vast minority that use their (usually illegal anyway) guns to commit unwarranted violence.

Click to expand...

I never said what the bigger picture was, I'm saying that what Sam is doing is the wrong way to go through it as anecdotes can be very misrepresentative (not a word I think, but I hope you get what I mean).

The fact that the mainstream media only presents one side's anecdotes is both honest and relevant. Sammy's highlight of that fact is valid. His anecdotes don't prove the value of gun ownership, although if you insist on that you're pretty well on the hook to admit that gun control anecdotes such as Sandy Hook don't prove the value of gun control.

dteowner said:

The fact that the mainstream media only presents one side's anecdotes is both honest and relevant. Sammy's highlight of that fact is valid. His anecdotes don't prove the value of gun ownership, although if you insist on that you're pretty well on the hook to admit that gun control anecdotes such as Sandy Hook don't prove the value of gun control.

Click to expand...

I don't think they do.

I think that having too many guns available will result in more gun crime by the numbers game.

10 guns on the street mean ten people can harm people, 100 guns on the street mean 100 people can harm people.

Yes knives can also kill and so can bare hands, but by virtue of ease, distance and multiple shots fired in rapid succession, I deem guns more dangerous than many other means.

I think swords should be banned too, except for in regulated use by martial artists or the army/police (and people who hunt with swords possibly too) because they can more easily kill people than knives. Also knives are used at home to cut things so it's hard in my mind to ban those.

Guns serve a purpose to defend oneself and I understand that, but I think that they need to be very restricted to people who can actually use them and are sure to make them safe. I do not know enough about the current laws in the US, but I do know these restrictions need to be quite strict and should include many classes in the usage of them as well as the mental state of the buyer (why does he/she need a gun ?)

I do understand that people in the US think that the government might turn on them and while this is unlikely, I think people can think what they want. The problem comes when a child can get a hold of a gun, or in this case a 20-year old or so manages to get a gun from his mother. Some things need to be reviewed, don't you think ? What happened ? How could that person get ahold of someone else's gun ? Was it badly secured ? Do people need to be audited for guns, just like for taxes maybe, with periodic checks that the guns are safely locked away ? Is it worth having the right to own automatic weapons ? I am not saying they shouldn't do this or should do this, but the point is that Americans should pose these questions and more to themselves and find answers they are comfortable with.


Yes, yes, criminals can get ahold of guns, just as they can get drugs. That's not the point. Does that mean that we should just stop having police officers in the US since they can't stop all crimes ? No, of course not, but they help. Just as good gun control could help the situation with guns.

I hope all of this made sense.

Pladio said:

I hope all of this made sense.

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. I think it comes to down to the greater good. The majority of gun owners are responsible I'm sure, but like you say it's a numbers game. The more guns going around mean a higher risk of people getting shot. So those responsible gun owners need to make a sacrifice, for the greater good.

It's like justifying driving a big 4WD because "it's safer". But safer for who? For the driver maybe, but what about everyone else on the road? It's putting your safety above others, which is not civilized.

And here i thought you were a fellow bad motherfucker….

Not so much

dteowner said:

The fact that the mainstream media only presents one side's anecdotes is both honest and relevant. Sammy's highlight of that fact is valid. His anecdotes don't prove the value of gun ownership, although if you insist on that you're pretty well on the hook to admit that gun control anecdotes such as Sandy Hook don't prove the value of gun control.

Click to expand...

How redundant do you want to get?

If Sandy Hook proved the value of gun control - then we wouldn't be having a discussion.

No, we have to submit to our limited ability to reason - and that's when widespread gun ownership becomes irrational to the point of insanity.

It's as irrational as his "mainstream media bias" conspiracy theory. Dte is very consistent in his irrationality

Pladio said:

@Icefire, your first part made sense, then it didn't. You think crime was low when they hooked you up to horses and pulled your limbs apart ? It wasn't. The people who commit crime are not in their right mind when committing the crime. So they do NOT think of the consequences.

However, having lots of guns on the street does increase the chance of there being a gun-related crime. It's simple maths.

From this :

It is clear that you did not pay into account that it was with a legally owned gun that the recent shooter shot his mom. If she had no gun in the house, it would have required a great deal of effort to find one in comparison.

While not hard, it would still have added an obstacle to the process and at the very least would have reduced the chance of it happening.


Also, nowhere in this post I have advocated for or against more gun control, just against the arguments you have presented in your post. Please do not run a straw man telling me I have said things I haven't.

Click to expand...

Where in my post did I mention you at all?? Please quote me and place it in a post so I can see it. I did not say a single word to you or about you, nor did I in any way "tell you you have said things when you havent." It was intended for anybody who thinks creating stricter gun laws are going to put an end or reduce this kind of killing. It won't.

And you are naive if you think if he didn't have access to his mothers gun it "would have reduced the chance of it happening." It still would have. Just with a different gun. A "great" deal of effort to find a gun?? Puh-leeze. Anybody can find one with very little effort.

zahratustra said:

It's as irrational as his "mainstream media bias" conspiracy theory. Dte is very consistent in his irrationality

Click to expand...

Would you care to explain why stories such as those presented by Sammy do not get widestream media coverage? Since I'm obviously just some paranoid dipshit, I'm quite certain you have a completely logical explanation for why that FACT exists, as well as a completely logical explanation for why the one-sided coverage is somehow completely logical and fair. Do enlighten, champ. Perhaps JemyM will swing by to supply the fancy Latin for that faulty logic where you cover up for your shitty argument by blindly insulting the other person, with no response toward the actual argument. Roll eyes, indeed.

DArtagnan said:

How redundant do you want to get?

If Sandy Hook proved the value of gun control - then we wouldn't be having a discussion.

No, we have to submit to our limited ability to reason - and that's when widespread gun ownership becomes irrational to the point of insanity.

Click to expand...

Funny, you hadn't really weighed in on gun control until Sandy Hook, and you cited it as proof that gun control is obvious. You seemed to think that the anecdote was sufficient to prompt a multi-thread campaign, and you claim it as onoing proof that gun ownership is irrational to the point of insanity.

But I'm redundant for reminding you of the fact that, if you get to hang your argument on anecdotes it's only reasonable that other side should be allowed to do the same. The fact that you demand a slanted playing field just highlights how weak your argument is.

Icefire said:

Where in my post did I mention you at all?? Please quote me and place it in a post so I can see it. I did not say a single word to you or about you, nor did I in any way "tell you you have said things when you havent." It was intended for anybody who thinks creating stricter gun laws are going to put an end or reduce this kind of killing. It won't.

Click to expand...

I think I must not have been clear. The point was for you not to do it.I wasn't saying that you had done it.

And you are naive if you think if he didn't have access to his mothers gun it "would have reduced the chance of it happening." It still would have. Just with a different gun. A "great" deal of effort to find a gun?? Puh-leeze. Anybody can find one with very little effort.

Click to expand...

That's a possibility, but how do you know ? (him going and killing people with finding another gun) Yes, people can find guns, but ask anyone and the ease or difficulty of committing a crime acts as an obstacle to actually doing it.

There's a reason they put metal detectors in airports, it's to prevent people from easily accessing airports with weapons. It doesn't mean it could never happen, but it adds an element of difficulty which would hinder people who might have thought to do things. It's actually quite simple psychology. I'm sure Jemy has a name for it.

Countries used it in the past. MAD was one of the concepts for Russia and the US to avoid going at war with each other.

So, you can call me naive all you want, but it's proven that having deterrents in place actually deter people from doing things. So not having a gun in the house would have possibly made the guy not got it to kill his mom and then go on a rampage.

He could have, but the extra element of having to go and find it makes it much harder on most people.

Pladio said:

So, you can call me naive all you want, but it's proven that having deterrents in place actually deter people from doing things.

Click to expand...

Says one of the people that strongly opposes the death penalty... Irony on line 1.

Oh cut the crap dte. This is radiculous. EU has lower number of crimes which are considered 'capital crimes' in US AND EU has lower gun related himicide rates. So yes, our deterrents in place actually do a better job at detering people from 'doing things'.

dteowner said:

Says one of the people that strongly opposes the death penalty… Irony on line 1.

Click to expand...

That's because the death penalty does act as a deterrent but is final and cannot be unturned once done. Not giving a gun to someone for example, who can then appeal the process and get the gun in the end is not the same. So your point is moot.

You cannot take the same logic to everything. Again, otherwise, I could ask you why you have cops in the US ? They serve no purpose of stopping crime, so let's just stop having cops I am not doing that though, because it isn't a one shoe fits all kind of thing. It usually is not.

But yes, I'm against the death penalty.

dteowner said:

Funny, you hadn't really weighed in on gun control until Sandy Hook, and you cited it as proof that gun control is obvious. You seemed to think that the anecdote was sufficient to prompt a multi-thread campaign, and you claim it as onoing proof that gun ownership is irrational to the point of insanity.

Click to expand...

I've been "weighing in" on this issue for a very long time, and this is not the first incident to provoke a response from me regarding gun control around here.

I've never claimed a single incident as proof - but it's yet another example of how easy access to weapons can lead to tragedy. The pattern of tragedies is simply a very strong support for what I'm saying - but it's not proof.

Please spare me your fantasy scenarios.

But I'm redundant for reminding you of the fact that, if you get to hang your argument on anecdotes it's only reasonable that other side should be allowed to do the same. The fact that you demand a slanted playing field just highlights how weak your argument is.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's create a fantasy and then respond to it - instead of what I'm really saying. That will definitely help your case.

These morons who think they need guns in case da gobernment comes after them, are too insane to realize they could never defend themselves against an army of troopers, tanks, and bombers, and other paranoid delusions…

To be proud of a nation where you have that level of distrust in the government is truly a paradox of disturbing proportions.

DArtagnan said:

To be proud of a nation where you have that level of distrust in the government is truly a paradox of disturbing proportions.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. OTOH... To put complete trust and control in governments that prompt 2 world wars, display utter fiscal incompetence, and regulate cucumber bend and baby names is truly a paradox of disturbing proportions.

dte I think u forgot to reply to my post...

dteowner said:

Fair enough. OTOH… To put complete trust and control in governments that prompt 2 world wars, display utter fiscal incompetence, and regulate cucumber bend and baby names is truly a paradox of disturbing proportions.

Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that the only alternative to extreme and paranoid distrust you can see is complete trust. Have you heard of healthy and justified scepticism? Nah, that's hardly radical or paranoid enough for you.