Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals

[Donald Trump]

So I was looking at figures for gun control, to laugh at liberals and it's very shocking. The facts are even funnier then I expected.

 

 

So far there is no link between guns and homicide rates by firearms. Isn't that funny? 

 

As normal, the liberal mind has no bias in reality, very sad! No proof that gun control actually works! Dishonest! 

 

So Liberals. With all your beliefs in "Science", can you give me scientific proof that your gun control works? 

Edited October 8, 2016 by Donald Trump

[Beatrix]

https://www.armedwithreason.com/

 

this site basically poops on any pro-gun argument ever.

[Donald Trump]

https://www.armedwithreason.com/

 

this site basically poops on any pro-gun argument ever.

I can link to sites as well. But that isn't an argument. 

[Sailor Jerry]

Yet another original debate idea.....do some quick research folks......we've all heard this shit before.........https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9994-obligatory-gun-control-thread/

[Beatrix]

There's a few problems I can see in that website straight up.

 

https://www.armedwithreason.com/five-arguments-against-gun-control-and-why-theyre-all-wrong/

 

Following this website, let me tell you a few rebuttals to some of these arguments.

 

First, "a good guy with a gun" really could have stopped the pulse nightclub massacre - if there was actually more than one other person with a gun. Anyway if the second amendment was actually followed, more than one person should have had a firearm in the nightclub (maybe because gays are generally liberals and liberals are firearmphobic?) which would have increased the odds of killing the shooter faster. It then goes to show that people with "varying levels of training" failed to kill the target, and sometimes killed innocents. This should be counteracted by actually supplying gun owners with licenses to required training, similar to a driving test. Even though that could be seen as unconstitutional, it does counter the point.

 

Shooters target gun free zones - as in, shooters target places that have no guns. The 33 shootings the article references, 15 were in gun free zones. The other 18 would have had minimal weaponry, and the armed security guards, of which there would have been few, and even then, the guards would have to reach the location of the shooter before he could be neutralised. If any of the victims had weapons, they could have had a fighting chance at retaining their lives, but they chose not to carry.

 

Now the third point I agree with to a degree, and so does trump. People on FBI terror and general watch lists should have their second amendment rights taken from them because they are a proven danger. But, if there was some sort of formal firearms training and required firearm possession, no doubt many of these tragedies could have been averted.

 

Terrorists don't care about laws, however they do make them more careful. This point sort of ties in with the previous one - as in, if you're on s watchlist you shouldn't have access to weapons. The only problem with this is that bombs aren't a right, but firearms are. Counters to this argument are in the above paragraph.

 

Now, the fifth paragraph is kinda off the point. Guns are made to kill, and as such, they are useful for deterring such attacks. If every teacher in sandy hook had a firearm, and the required training to own it, I can guarantee there would be many less casualties. Using my own country as an example, there are no school shootings, but there are still plenty of shootings by people who make their own guns. These are usually criminals killing other criminals, but anyway, people use knives in attacks nowadays if they really want to do some damage. As the article said, there were no deaths in the mass stabbing in China, however, there are still deaths equivalent to firearms in America by melee weapons in England.

 

 

 

First, "a good guy with a gun" really could have stopped the pulse nightclub massacre - if there was actually more than one other person with a gun. Anyway if the second amendment was actually followed, more than one person should have had a firearm in the nightclub (maybe because gays are generally liberals and liberals are firearmphobic?) which would have increased the odds of killing the shooter faster. 

Anecdotal evidence isn't a good way for policy, as the article itself stated:

"Overwhelming empirical evidence corroborates the simulation. Of the 160 active shooting incidents identified by the FBI from 2000 to 2013, only one was stopped by an armed civilian. In comparison, two were stopped by off-duty police, four by armed guards and 21 by unarmed civilians."

 

 

 

 It then goes to show that people with "varying levels of training" failed to kill the target, and sometimes killed innocents. This should be counteracted by actually supplying gun owners with licenses to required training, similar to a driving test. Even though that could be seen as unconstitutional, it does counter the point.

That's called gun control, which the authors embrace as part of a gun reform. They don't and have never supported gun prohibition.

 

 

 

Shooters target gun free zones - as in, shooters target places that have no guns. The 33 shootings the article references, 15 were in gun free zones. The other 18 would have had minimal weaponry, and the armed security guards, of which there would have been few, and even then, the guards would have to reach the location of the shooter before he could be neutralised. 

Claim: Shooters target gun free zones

Counter-claim: Places that are gun-free zones aren't targeted more

 

There is nothing beyond that. Infact, the fact that places with "minimal weaponary" are more likely to be targeted than gun free zones(in this small sample 18 to 15) only counters your claims even more.

Here's a more detailed article about the same issue:

https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/

 

 

 

 

If any of the victims had weapons, they could have had a fighting chance at retaining their lives, but they chose not to carry.

If any of the victims had weapons, they would likely have gone through a fatal accident using that gun, or be unable to properly operate it. It's amusing that you've said that supplying gun owners with licenses as a counter point, but completely ignore the fact that doing so will always result in less overall guns. Getting guns harder = less guns overall.

 

To further expand on this point;

https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/

 

 

 

Now the third point I agree with to a degree, and so does trump. People on FBI terror and general watch lists should have their second amendment rights taken from them because they are a proven danger. But, if there was some sort of formal firearms training and required firearm possession, no doubt many of these tragedies could have been averted.

Yes, that's called gun control.

 

 

 

Now, the fifth paragraph is kinda off the point. Guns are made to kill, and as such, they are useful for deterring such attacks. If every teacher in sandy hook had a firearm, and the required training to own it, I can guarantee there would be many less casualties. Using my own country as an example, there are no school shootings, but there are still plenty of shootings by people who make their own guns. These are usually criminals killing other criminals, but anyway, people use knives in attacks nowadays if they really want to do some damage. As the article said, there were no deaths in the mass stabbing in China, however, there are still deaths equivalent to firearms in America by melee weapons in England.

 

 

 

Now, the fifth paragraph is kinda off the point. Guns are made to kill, and as such, they are useful for deterring such attacks.

That is your unsubstantiated non-academic, non-scientific, and irrelevant opinion. You are, however, empirically wrong.

https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

https://www.armedwithreason.com/more-holes-in-the-defensive-gun-use-myth-new-study-finds-dgu-is-ineffective-and-rare/

https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth-guns-do-not-make-you-safer/

 

 

 

Using my own country as an example, there are no school shootings, but there are still plenty of shootings by people who make their own guns. These are usually criminals killing other criminals, but anyway, people use knives in attacks nowadays if they really want to do some damage. As the article said, there were no deaths in the mass stabbing in China, however, there are still deaths equivalent to firearms in America by melee weapons in England.

Irrelevant. Not to mention that guns are literally made to kill and cause as much damage as possible to their victims whereas knives are made for, well, cutting onions & bread. They're also used to cut cables, ropes and have many other uses that are practical to every day life. Not to mention they're a lot more accesable over guns, too. Almost all homes have multiple knives. Most workplaces have knives somewhere. 

[Donald Trump]

Lets look at a city which put in gun laws.

 

 

Pretty funny, isn't it? 

[Beatrix]

 

FUNNY AIN'T IT

[Donald Trump]

 

FUNNY AIN'T IT

So what? The purpose of gun control according to liberals is to stop people getting killed and it doesn't work. 

[Beatrix]

"I shouldn't have to prove it, it's common sense"

top kek. I just disproved all you've said through academic data that is published on that website, and that's your response, really. 

 

The argumen you present "If everyone had a gun, and there was mandated training" is a fallacious one because

a) Mandated training is gun control. 

Less people will have guns if a) was implemented

 

The argument is that more guns, as in, lax gun control - causes more crimes. That argument is true. One solution is implementing gun control that will mandate training, resulting in less crime. 

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension - you're suggesting a claim in favor of gun control is wrong because it could be fixed with gun control. 

 

 

 

 This could have been remedied if everyone was required to own and carry a firearm.

 

Sorry, I don't care to argue about the hypothetical nonrealistic world where EVERYONE is REQUIRED to carry a firearm.

 

 

 

Yeah again, required carry and licence would have minimalised deaths. "Likely gone through a fatal accident using that gun" - natural selection. If you're looking down the barrel of the gun while you clean it, have the safety off and your finger on the trigger then you're an idiot.

Or gun malfunctions, or live rounds used instead of fake rounds, or suicide, or missing a shot, or having an unauthorized person such as a child deal with the gun. 

 

Yes, in a perfect world where there are no place for accidents this doesn't happen, however, in reality, this happens all the time even within the most trained gun users, aka soldiers, police officers, etc. The facts are that you're more likely to get injured by your own gun or injuring someone else by accident than to use it in self defense. This isn't "natural selection", it's called human error, and guns are, in the end, mechanically prune to failure. Especially when you 'require'( rofl ) everyone to own a gun.

 

 

 

As for my claim that guns deter attacks, I'm gonna have to put us in a hypothetical contemporary situation. I am walking in Brooklyn New York, and suddenly a man in an alley pulls a knife on me and says "hand over your wallet". I have a gun, so I pull that and say "get stuffed".

If you're likely to have a gun, your attacker will more likely have a gun which will result in both of your deaths and possibly fatally injuring people around you. Since guns are rarely used in self defense, he's actually more likely to have a gun than you(because of lax gun control law)

 

 

 

So what? The purpose of gun control according to liberals is to stop people getting killed and it doesn't work. 

Yes, and the graph you provided doesn't argue that it doesn't work. In the same way that what I posted doesn't argue that if we increase arcade income we will see a spike in computer science doctorates.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Beatrix

[Donald Trump]

Yes, and the graph you provided doesn't argue that it doesn't work. In the same way that what I posted doesn't argue that if we increase arcade income we will see a spike in computer science doctorates.

It does, it debunks the idea that gun control = less deaths.

 

Do you get what the burden of proof is? Any actual stats which show deaths decreasing due to gun control?

[Beatrix]

If you point a gun at someone you're in control, maybe, but in reality that person would be in control over you with a gun as well, which is why your extremely unlikely scenario is irrelevant to the reality that has been studied for decades now.

 

Of course, there would be /some/ causes where you'll be in control, but that is a statistical insignificant amount. There's also a chance that the gun he's handling will be blocked and explode right in his face - is that an argument? No, it's stupid and that's exactly the level of argumentation you provided.

[Spite]

Now take out all the countries with incomparable political and economic situations and just focus on the wealthy developed countries, and compare again.

[WISD0MTREE]

Now take out all the countries with incomparable political and economic situations and just focus on the wealthy developed countries, and compare again.

European nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. For example, Russia, where only 3 in 100 people own a gun, has a murder rate of about 20 people per 100,000, whereas Finland, where 39 in 100 own guns, has a murder rate of only 2 per 100,000. Despite having a very high rate of private gun ownership, Switzerland has very little gun violence. Swiss gun homicides stood at 0.2389 per 100,000 residents in 2010 despite the fact that they are third in the world in terms of numbers of firearms owned by private individuals. This figure is among the lowest in the world. It has less to do with the availability of the guns and more to do with the culture and values of the people using them. 

[Spite]

European nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. For example, Russia, where only 3 in 100 people own a gun, has a murder rate of about 20 people per 100,000, whereas Finland, where 39 in 100 own guns, has a murder rate of only 2 per 100,000. Despite having a very high rate of private gun ownership, Switzerland has very little gun violence. Swiss gun homicides stood at 0.2389 per 100,000 residents in 2010 despite the fact that they are third in the world in terms of numbers of firearms owned by private individuals. This figure is among the lowest in the world. It has less to do with the availability of the guns and more to do with the culture and values of the people using them. 

 

Russia is a shithole overrun by gang violence, whereas Finland and Switzerland have next to no social issues. 

 

Also, both those countries have extremely strict gun control laws, despite having high gun ownership.

[Beatrix]

Given identical cultures and values of people using guns, the country with more guns will suffer more gun deaths, accidents, murders and problems. That's just the fact of having destructive, fatal weaponary freely available. The only thing you've, ehm, proven - is the cherrypicking fallacy. Gun ownership isn't a metric either - the problem isn't people having guns, but who has guns? Gun control prevents the wrong people from getting guns, which is what any sane person would argue.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Beatrix

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Some of the posts here nearly made me poke my eyes out. Good job, gun trolls.

[Beatrix]

Guns save babies. Teach babies to use guns so they can defend themselves from bullies!

 

[WISD0MTREE]

Russia is a shithole overrun by gang violence, whereas Finland and Switzerland have next to no social issues. 

 

Also, both those countries have extremely strict gun control laws, despite having high gun ownership.

Alright, you compare some countries. 

 

Given identical cultures and values of people using guns, the country with more guns will suffer more gun deaths, accidents, murders and problems. That's just the fact of having destructive, fatal weaponary freely available. 

 

Gun control prevents the wrong people from getting guns, which is what any sane person would argue.

[citation needed]

 

If you're looking to impose new laws that somehow keep guns away from criminals and crazy people without infringing on the gun rights of the rest of us, we're with you. But if your common-sense solution means infringing on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, we're going to fight you every inch of the way. What exactly do you have in mind? 

 

Some of the posts here nearly made me poke my eyes out. Good job, gun-control trolls.

 

 

-snip-

But open carrying HAS stopped some crazies. By definition, a would-be mass shooter who is stopped before he can commit his act does not perform a mass shooting! Asking how many mass shooters have been stopped by armed civilians is like asking how many candles would've burned into house fires if they hadn't been blown out.

That said, here are some occasions when an armed civilian stopped what probably would have turned into a mass shooting:

Conyers, Ga., May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people were killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot] . . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.â€

Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.†Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.â€

Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.â€

Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.

Chicago, July 2014: Three gang members fired on four people who had just left a party. Fortunately, one of these four was a military serviceman with a concealed-handgun permit. He was able to return fire and wound the main attacker while keeping the others at bay. The UK’s Daily Mail reported, “The night might have had a very different outcome had the incident occurred a year earlier [before Illinois’s concealed-handgun law was passed].â€

Plymouth, Pa., September 2012: William Allabaugh critically wounded one man inside a restaurant and murdered a second man on the street outside. Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Jarrett Ferentino said that without the concealed-handgun permit holder who wounded Allabaugh, “we believe that it could have been much worse that night.â€

Spartanburg, S.C., March 2012: Armed with a shotgun, Jesse Gates kicked in a door to his church. Concealed-carry permit holder Aaron Guyton drew his gun and held Gates at gunpoint, enabling other parishioners to disarm Gates. Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright called the churchgoers heroes. Though Gates was stopped before anyone was harmed, he was still charged with one count of kidnapping and three counts of pointing and presenting a firearm.

[Spite]

I don't need to prove anything because I didn't come here to argue with the uninformed. The USA has an unacceptably high homicide rate for a developed country, and a high proportion of those are gun deaths. In the words of Mao Tse Tung, the gun is the great leveller. Whether you're a 40kg lightweight or a 180kg pro wrestler, the gun levels the playing field. It makes killing as easy as pulling a trigger. It opens it up to the masses instead of a few thugs practiced in the art of violence. In any case, I'm not American so I personally don't really care about the orgy of violence over there or the fact so many people seem blind to causation.

[Rozalia]

Not a gun supporter by any means, but I do believe it's true that America's high gun deaths is more because of the terrible social problems the country has then simply gun ownership. Ultimately if you ban guns, "control" them to whatever degree or let it be what plagues places like Chicago will continue. Of course those against guns will never seriously tackle such real issues and what "fixes" they have are known failures that have failed time and time again. No worries though as once their politics are in the dustbin of history then someone will mercifully clean up the mess they have allowed to build up.

 

I don't need to prove anything because I didn't come here to argue with the uninformed. 

 

For those thinking of responding that right there is the prompt to simply ignore the poster. They're here to agitate and attack, not to be of good character and have a discussion.

[Stefan Thorne]

Not a gun supporter by any means, but I do believe it's true that America's high gun deaths is more because of the terrible social problems the country has then simply gun ownership. Ultimately if you ban guns, "control" them to whatever degree or let it be what plagues places like Chicago will continue. Of course those against guns will never seriously tackle such real issues and what "fixes" they have are known failures that have failed time and time again. No worries though as once their politics are in the dustbin of history then someone will mercifully clean up the mess they have allowed to build up.

I agree banning guns won't help anything since people will just start buying them illegally or just kill people with other weapons. The real issue I believe is mental health where if we can ensure that people have proper background checks and improved mental health treatments I think that gun violence will go down 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I agree banning guns won't help anything since people will just start buying them illegally or just kill people with other weapons. The real issue I believe is mental health where if we can ensure that people have proper background checks and improved mental health treatments I think that gun violence will go down 

 

I'm all for mental health treatment. Let's lock up all gun nuts in asylums and teach them why killing people is bad.

[Frederick]

I'm all for mental health treatment. Let's lock up all gun nuts in asylums and teach them why killing people is bad.

You sound enormously tolerant of other viewpoints.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Octavius

[Beatrix]

Alright, you compare some countries. 

 

[citation needed]

 

If you're looking to impose new laws that somehow keep guns away from criminals and crazy people without infringing on the gun rights of the rest of us, we're with you. But if your common-sense solution means infringing on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, we're going to fight you every inch of the way. What exactly do you have in mind? 

 

 

 

But open carrying HAS stopped some crazies. By definition, a would-be mass shooter who is stopped before he can commit his act does not perform a mass shooting! Asking how many mass shooters have been stopped by armed civilians is like asking how many candles would've burned into house fires if they hadn't been blown out.

That said, here are some occasions when an armed civilian stopped what probably would have turned into a mass shooting:

Conyers, Ga., May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people were killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot] . . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.â€

Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.†Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.â€

Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.â€

Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.

Chicago, July 2014: Three gang members fired on four people who had just left a party. Fortunately, one of these four was a military serviceman with a concealed-handgun permit. He was able to return fire and wound the main attacker while keeping the others at bay. The UK’s Daily Mail reported, “The night might have had a very different outcome had the incident occurred a year earlier [before Illinois’s concealed-handgun law was passed].â€

Plymouth, Pa., September 2012: William Allabaugh critically wounded one man inside a restaurant and murdered a second man on the street outside. Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Jarrett Ferentino said that without the concealed-handgun permit holder who wounded Allabaugh, “we believe that it could have been much worse that night.â€

Spartanburg, S.C., March 2012: Armed with a shotgun, Jesse Gates kicked in a door to his church. Concealed-carry permit holder Aaron Guyton drew his gun and held Gates at gunpoint, enabling other parishioners to disarm Gates. Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright called the churchgoers heroes. Though Gates was stopped before anyone was harmed, he was still charged with one count of kidnapping and three counts of pointing and presenting a firearm.

 

[citation needed]

 

If you're looking to impose new laws that somehow keep guns away from criminals and crazy people without infringing on the gun rights of the rest of us, we're with you. But if your common-sense solution means infringing on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, we're going to fight you every inch of the way. What exactly do you have in mind? 

 

I can't cite any data because no two nations have the exact same circumstances. The point was that guns, naturally, are more destructive than other forms of weaponary and thus making assaults & accidents more lethal & more likely - for multiple people. It actually goes beyond that, too. Suicide prevention in the US is reliant on gun control, the reasons of which could be found here:

https://www.armedwithreason.com/suicides-the-missing-movement/

 

I don't support gun prohibition, I support gun control - permits, training, liscenses, health requirements, title and tagging at each sale, liability insurance & inspections. In other words, they'll be as regulated as cars. If you feel like the car regulations are infringing on your rights, then perhaps you should start there since cars are much more common than guns.

 

 

 

But open carrying HAS stopped some crazies. By definition, a would-be mass shooter who is stopped before he can commit his act does not perform a mass shooting! Asking how many mass shooters have been stopped by armed civilians is like asking how many candles would've burned into house fires if they hadn't been blown out.

Yes, it has. It also caused the deaths of the person carrying from gun failure or misuse. It also caused the deaths of others through gun failure or misuse. It also caused the death of the assaultee since, regardless of what you think, defensive gun uses are very often illegal. Illegal in the sense that they were unwarranted, overreactive, and so on. If someone threatens you by looking at you weird and you go on and shoot them that's not self defense, which is what happens with open carries.

 

Studies, some of which are linked in posts previous, have all shown that defensive gun usage is rare and ineffective, and it's statistically more likely to end up hurting more people than it saves. I can point to 13 cases where people were killed by vending machines, is that a valid argument against vending machines? No, these are rare occurences. 

 

The thing most people don't realize is that these cases where people have defended themselves would have guns regardless of gun control. In most cases, these people would be able to obtain their weapon in legal ways.

[Donald Trump]

With suicide people will just chuck themselves under trains like they do in Communist parts of Europe.