Whatever. — Sir2u

Just making a fool of yourself

One fact seems blatantly obvious -- and has been addressed by Steven Pinker in his book regarding violence -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is an empirical fact. — Youseeff

It's a bullshit fact. Here's why..

People with automatic weapons tend to be capable of exterminating several children quite easily.
People without guns find it much harder to kill children.

Just making a fool of yourself — charleton

Ditto.

People with automatic weapons tend to be capable of exterminating several children quite easily.
People without guns find it much harder to kill children. — charleton

Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England.

Anyone who claims that guns like this are not the equivalent of war weapons and accuses those who claim they are of "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods" is either deliberately lying or willfully ignorant.

It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime. — JustSomeGuy

He also finds that robberies in which the assailant uses a gun are more likely to result in the death of the victim, but less likely to result in injury to the victim.[138] — JustSomeGuy

You're citing findings which go against your initial claim.

Guns, clearly, are a more lethal weapon. This is both common sense and supported by statistics, some of which I cited earlier. Injuries can be minor, serious, or life threatening, but there's no such thing as a minor death. When you're dead, you're dead. That's it. Zero prospect of recovery.

Violent crime is not equivalent to gun deaths. — JustSomeGuy

Right, but gun deaths as a result of violent crime is of import. Violent crimes may vary from homicide to harassment, but clearly gun deaths which come under this category are higher up in terms of severity than other violent crimes in that same category, such as assault or attempted murder. And, based on the findings that you yourself cited, robberies in which the assailant uses a gun are more likely to result in the death of the victim.

Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England. — Sir2u

So are you also in favour of people having bombs??? LOL

Like I said: You are making a fool of yourself.

It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime.
— JustSomeGuy — Sapientia

Total croc of shit.

So you've read nothing I've said since that statement? Because everything I've said has very clearly been about how guns do not cause people to be violent or commit crime, they only make the crimes more lethal. — JustSomeGuy

(The comment above was directed at Wayfarer)

Oh, so you acknowledge the point that guns make the crimes more lethal, which is a big point against maintaining the comparatively lax gun controls in the United States. I'm fairly confident that the parents of those who died in the Florida shooting would rather have their children with them right now, recovering from their injuries, as might have otherwise been the case had a gun not been used, instead of them having been shot dead, which is the tragic reality. Sorry for preaching to the choir. I should have read more before replying.

Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England. — Sir2u

Although charle's usually a dumbass, he said harder, not impossible. Finding an instance of mass murder that doesn't involve semi-automatic rifles doesn't make the regulation of semi-automatic rifles a moot endeavor.

Anyone who claims that guns like this are not the equivalent of war weapons and accuses those who claim they are of "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods" is either deliberately lying or willfully ignorant. — Baden

The fundamental issue at play here is whether one has a right to self defense and the right to defend oneself how they want to. Certainly one does have a right to self defense - a right to bear arms - but I don't think that one has free reign on how they do so. The "don't take mah guns awee" crowd don't seem to realize that they can't "defend themselves" with lots of things already. You can't play with Uranium or VX, hell I remember in high school how many hoops and loops my chemistry teacher had to go through just to get some simple chemicals for us. The "fear-mongering" is rather on the part of those who think that others are out to neuter them and make them unsafe, which isn't the intention of anyone I don't think.

Agreed.

Bump stock. Shit stock.

No person can have any legitimate reason for owning or using such a weapon.

Anyone who claims that guns like this are not the equivalent of war weapons and accuses those who claim they are of "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods" is either deliberately lying or willfully ignorant. — Baden

I had in mind grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc when I made my comment. Civilians don't have access to these quintessential weapons of war.

If it matters so terribly to you, I can happily acknowledge that the weapons civilians do have access to are also military grade weapons, in that they or their equivalents have been or are used by the military. I can concede this because it doesn't affect my position in the slightest. You're fear mongering by calling these guns "weapons of war," the idea apparently being that that is the only setting in which they ought to or can function, which is false. The other falsehood, moreover, was the suggestion by Agustino that civilians have access to the first set of military weapons. They don't.

Believe it or not, I'm in favor of gun control, which means in part that I don't believe civilians ought to have access to the first set of military weapons and that there may be reasonable limits placed on the weapons they currently have access to as well as on their procurement. The change in my position has been one from, "we ought to ban all guns" to "we ought not to ban all guns." The continued attempts in this thread to paint me as some rabid, gun toting and loving NRA shill are getting really, really old.

The other falsehood, moreover, was the suggestion by Agustino that civilians have access to the first set of military weapons. — Thorongil

Where did @Agustino claim that civilians had access to the first set of weapons you mentioned, which were:

"grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc"?

He said there was:

...no need ever to own assault rifles, automatic war weaponry, etc. — Agustino

By automatic war weaponry, I presume he meant rifles like the one in Buxtebuddha's video, which were designed with war in mind, and are, with modification, automatic. In any case, he obviously doesn't think tanks, helicopters and fighter jets are in civilian hands nor does anyone else. You know that, right?

The continued attempts in this thread to paint me as some rabid, gun toting and loving NRA shill are getting really, really old. — Thorongil

I never mentioned you in connection with the NRA or rabidness or loving guns, and I'm not responsible for anyone who has. My comment concerns your mischaracterizing of your interlocutor's as "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods". We're not. The growing piles of dead children are testimony to the fact that some fear of these weapons being easily available is absolutely justified.

How do you know? This sort of assumption is at the heart of the anti-gun rhetoric, it seems to me, and it's never demonstrated. — Thorongil

Simple. I demonstrate it by asking you to give me examples of realistic situations when you would need such a weapon for self-defence.

As I've already pointed out, and this is for Baden too, there are guns more powerful and deadly than the AR-15. — Thorongil

You're equivocating on "powerful". Guns can be "more powerful" in a lot of different ways. Deeper penetration from one single bullet but very slow firing rate for example. Or you can have very fast firing rate, with less damage per bullet. There are many ways to assess what is "more powerful". So you're just equivocating.

No regular civilian needs such a weapon for self-defence, whether in the bump stock version or in its traditional form.

Where did Agustino claim that civilians had access to the first set of weapons you mentioned, which were: — Baden

He mentioned machine guns and bazookas. I filled in other weaponry that I had in mind.

No. You're obviously misrespresenting him. (Unless he's completely insane, which I doubt).

The only mention of bazookas is here:

Oh yeaaaaah, the hamster mafia is after me, I certainly need a bazooka to defend myself, I'm sure they'll be coming with tanks too I'm prepared: — Agustino

If you can't distinguish a joke like the above from a serious point then you really have a problem, frankly.

I can't find any mention of him claiming civilians had access to machine guns either. He mentioned automatic weaponry, which with a bump stock is effectively possible. But if he really did say all that, quote him, and I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, let's try to keep things factual.

I demonstrate it by asking you to give me examples of realistic situations when you would need such a weapon for self-defense. — Agustino

It is estimated that there are between 60k to several million defensive gun uses each year.

If you can't distinguish a joke like the above from a serious point then you really have a problem, frankly. — Baden

I get that it was a joke, but it was clearly meant as a reductio of my position.

Certainly one does have a right to self defense - a right to bear arms... — Buxtebuddha

I see that the same mistakes are still being made. There's a distinction of the utmost importance between a right to self-defence and a right to bear arms, and the latter doesn't simply follow from the former as if it were a self-evident truth, since we're clearly not talking in terms of absolutes. Self-denfence? Yes. Right to bear arms? Hell no. Does there exist such a right anywhere in the world? Yes, in a sense, but on paper only.

It is estimated that there are between 60k to several million defensive gun uses each year. — Thorongil

No, that's not what I asked you for. You are just running from the questions. Of course there are defensive gun uses - but those cases do not demand the use of war-like weaponry.

If you can't distinguish a joke like the above from a serious point then you really have a problem, frankly. — Baden

And they call me an Aspie... :lol:

demand the use of war-like weaponry. — Agustino

Define.

If there are no non-war-like weapons, and it doesn't seem that there are, then you're just against weapons per se, which would seem to indicate your opposition to the possession of any means of self-defense. All weapons qua weapons can be used in a setting of war, but that doesn't mean that is their sole purpose or function.

You clearly regard "war-like" as a negative quality in itself. Does that mean war-like clothing, such as camo, should be banned? What about war-like haircuts? War-like vehicles? War-like language? Lots of things fall under the category of "war-like" that it would be absurd to ban, so just claiming that guns are "war-like" isn't sufficient to show that they ought to be banned.

Self-denfence? Yes. Right to bear arms? Hell no. — Sapientia

Why doesn't a right to self-defense entail a right to the means of self-defense?

So are you also in favour of people having bombs??? LOL — charleton

If you actually learned to read you would see that I did not in any way imply that I am in favor of people having bombs. But I suppose that is too much to ask for.

If a person wants to kill others he will find a way to do it. And that does not mean that I am in favor of people having automatic weapons either. I was simple pointing out that there is more than one way to kill a lot of people if that is what the person wants to do. Don't blame the hammer for the nail that is put in the wrong place.

Like I said: You are making a fool of yourself. — charleton

The kettle talking about the pan or am I following your example?

Why doesn't a right to self-defense entail a right to the means of self-defense? — Thorongil

That's a straw man, not a point that I've made. A right to self-defence which is not absolute (as I specified, and by which I mean not unconditional) entails restrictions on the means of self-defence. There can be a right to self-defence without a right to bear arms. That's obvious, right?

That wasn't a strawman. I asked a question. I agree that there are restrictions on the means of self-defense, but I don't think that extends to banning all guns. Why do you think it does, if indeed you think that?

Although charle's usually a dumbass, he said harder, not impossible. Finding an instance of mass murder that doesn't involve semi-automatic rifles doesn't make the regulation of semi-automatic rifles a moot endeavor. — Buxtebuddha

Did I say anywhere that it was? I really do not remember saying that I think anyone and everyone should have automatic guns. I am not sure but in England it is probably easier to obtain what you need to make a bomb than it is to acquire a gun.

What I have said is that there is an issue regarding the rights of the people, an issue about the implementation and enforcement of any laws, and an issue about what qualifications someone should have to be allowed to have a gun.