Assault vehicles

[bobcollum]

Derp, cars aren't "designed to kill", as the uninformative poster you didn't create concludes. That's like me trying to claim that you can drive an M-16 to work.

Nice fail bro.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What you claim has not been proven and is not accurate.

Is in my State. Sorry.

Nope.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What you claim has not been proven and is not accurate.

Is in my State. Sorry.

Nope.

Yep. More guns. Less gun crime.

Down, down, down.

 

[FA_Q2]

your vehicle has been reviewed, already by the representatives of the people.

for a mature Society there are standards of civility for the common good ... this is excluded by the NRA and its membership in their arguments for the pursuit and possession of a weapon, solely designed to kill that is a threat to any individual within its proximity and not in the control of anyone.

Zimmerman is the capsule of the illegitimacy of the NRA.

Sure.

It has been proven COUNTLESS times that stricter gun laws do not promote the 'common good' by the fact that stricter gun laws never result in fewer people killed. Period.

Show how strict gun control actually saves lives and you have an argument. As it stands now, the facts show that increasing gun laws does not decrease homicides and right to carry laws (essentially relaxing gun control) does.

What you claim has not been proven and is not accurate.

What I claim has been proven over and over again and is completely accurate. I notice you make that statement without any fact in it whatsoever but I will repost the facts YET AGAIN as I have done in over 10 threads already. 10 threads where nary a single fact has been addressed....

------------------------------------------From another one of my posts--------------------------------------------------------

So, here we go again. Yet another thread I need to post this. Those threads are not getting much action anymore though since your entire side of the argument here seems to be completely devoid of any factual data what so ever.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You really think automobiles are legitimately comparable to firearms?

Then you should have no objection to

1. licensing and proficiency testing gun owners before they're allowed to use guns.

2. registering all guns and updating that registration every year or so.

3. requiring liability insurance on each and every gun owned.

...or maybe, you don't really think cars to guns is an apt comparison...

 

[Yurt]

Oh goodie. This argument again....because the Wingnut Brigade hasn't already played it to death.

BigDerp: a day late and a dollar short.

translation:

i can't rationally counter the argument because i am a left wing shill.

 

[Yurt]

You really think automobiles are legitimately comparable to firearms?

Then you should have no objection to

1. licensing and proficiency testing gun owners before they're allowed to use guns.

2. registering all guns and updating that registration every year or so.

3. requiring liability insurance on each and every gun owned.

...or maybe, you don't really think cars to guns is an apt comparison...

fair enough. now, let's treat guns like cars. no background check etc...

 

[bobcollum]

You really think automobiles are legitimately comparable to firearms?

Then you should have no objection to

1. licensing and proficiency testing gun owners before they're allowed to use guns.

2. registering all guns and updating that registration every year or so.

3. requiring liability insurance on each and every gun owned.

...or maybe, you don't really think cars to guns is an apt comparison...

fair enough. now, let's treat guns like cars. no background check etc...

Cars have a practical everyday use. Guns are for shooting things.

 

[Yurt]

You really think automobiles are legitimately comparable to firearms?

Then you should have no objection to

1. licensing and proficiency testing gun owners before they're allowed to use guns.

2. registering all guns and updating that registration every year or so.

3. requiring liability insurance on each and every gun owned.

...or maybe, you don't really think cars to guns is an apt comparison...

fair enough. now, let's treat guns like cars. no background check etc...

Cars have a practical everyday use. Guns are for shooting things.

guns have no practical everyday use? tell that to the military and police forces....i dare say they rely on their guns more than their cars.

 

[bobcollum]

fair enough. now, let's treat guns like cars. no background check etc...

Cars have a practical everyday use. Guns are for shooting things.

guns have no practical everyday use? tell that to the military and police forces....i dare say they rely on their guns more than their cars.

We're not talking about the military or police, we're talking about civilians, and the potential new laws that are making BigDerp crap his pants.

The premise of the thread is a fail, as is everything that comes after that tries to support it.

 

[Yurt]

Cars have a practical everyday use. Guns are for shooting things.

guns have no practical everyday use? tell that to the military and police forces....i dare say they rely on their guns more than their cars.

We're not talking about the military or police, we're talking about civilians, and the potential new laws that are making BigDerp crap his pants.

The premise of the thread is a fail, as is everything that comes after that tries to support it.

are military members and police not citizens? why should the second amendment be different for them?

the thread makes a good point. using a logical fallacy to show the absurdity of the left wing shill argument against guns.

 

[bobcollum]

guns have no practical everyday use? tell that to the military and police forces....i dare say they rely on their guns more than their cars.

We're not talking about the military or police, we're talking about civilians, and the potential new laws that are making BigDerp crap his pants.

The premise of the thread is a fail, as is everything that comes after that tries to support it.

are military members and police not citizens? why should the second amendment be different for them?

the thread makes a good point. using a logical fallacy to show the absurdity of the left wing shill argument against guns.

So you think if they pass new gun-control legislation it will also apply to military and police?

I don't think you thought about this as much as you should have.

 

[BreezeWood]

Zimmerman is the capsule of the illegitimacy of the NRA.

FA_Q2;

Sure.

It has been proven COUNTLESS times that stricter gun laws do not promote the 'common good' by the fact that stricter gun laws never result in fewer people killed. Period.

Show how strict gun control actually saves lives and you have an argument. As it stands now, the facts show that increasing gun laws does not decrease homicides and right to carry laws (essentially relaxing gun control) does.

Show how the NRA actually takes lives and you have an argument.


Zimmerman - and countless other deaths (Co Con etc) caused by immoral indifference to lethal weaponry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You really think automobiles are legitimately comparable to firearms?

Then you should have no objection to

1. licensing and proficiency testing gun owners before they're allowed to use guns.

2. registering all guns and updating that registration every year or so.

3. requiring liability insurance on each and every gun owned.

...or maybe, you don't really think cars to guns is an apt comparison...

fair enough. now, let's treat guns like cars. no background check etc...

Yes that's intelligent. Let's let gun crime felons buy machine guns at the Walmart.

You people are a real credit to the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what semi-automatic assault rifles most closely compare to?

Automatic assault rifles.

 

[Yurt]

You really think automobiles are legitimately comparable to firearms?

Then you should have no objection to

1. licensing and proficiency testing gun owners before they're allowed to use guns.

2. registering all guns and updating that registration every year or so.

3. requiring liability insurance on each and every gun owned.

...or maybe, you don't really think cars to guns is an apt comparison...

fair enough. now, let's treat guns like cars. no background check etc...

Yes that's intelligent. Let's let gun crime felons buy machine guns at the Walmart.

You people are a real credit to the right.

1. i'm not on the right

2. i was using reductio ad absurdum

 

[Yurt]

We're not talking about the military or police, we're talking about civilians, and the potential new laws that are making BigDerp crap his pants.

The premise of the thread is a fail, as is everything that comes after that tries to support it.

are military members and police not citizens? why should the second amendment be different for them?

the thread makes a good point. using a logical fallacy to show the absurdity of the left wing shill argument against guns.

So you think if they pass new gun-control legislation it will also apply to military and police?

I don't think you thought about this as much as you should have.

of course the legislation will not apply equally. hence my question, which you failed to answer.

 

[bobcollum]

are military members and police not citizens? why should the second amendment be different for them?

the thread makes a good point. using a logical fallacy to show the absurdity of the left wing shill argument against guns.

So you think if they pass new gun-control legislation it will also apply to military and police?

I don't think you thought about this as much as you should have.

of course the legislation will not apply equally. hence my question, which you failed to answer.

You're trying to confuse things, that's why I didn't answer the specific question you asked.

Of course police and military are citizens, but there's a reason why they themselves refer to non-police and non-military as "civilians", just as they become civilians again once they're not on the clock, as they say.

Your point was invalid.

 

[FA_Q2]

Breeze Wood: Zimmerman is the capsule of the illegitimacy of the NRA.

FA_Q2;

Sure.

It has been proven COUNTLESS times that stricter gun laws do not promote the 'common good' by the fact that stricter gun laws never result in fewer people killed. Period.

Show how strict gun control actually saves lives and you have an argument. As it stands now, the facts show that increasing gun laws does not decrease homicides and right to carry laws (essentially relaxing gun control) does.

Show how the NRA actually takes lives and you have an argument.


Zimmerman - and countless other deaths (Co Con etc) caused by immoral indifference to lethal weaponry.

Did you not see the hoist of data that I presented on page 2.

Go back and read. One incident means nothing, particularly that incident. Strict gun control does not lead to a lower homicide rate. In most cases the homicide rate increases.

Given that the anti gun people wish to reduce our freedoms, it is up to them to produce the evidence that gun control will reduce the loss of life. Such proof is absent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know what semi-automatic assault rifles most closely compare to?

Automatic assault rifles.

Is this an assault weapon?

A better picture