Handguns

[Winnow]

As Sueven said, who's probably the most balanced poster here, or at least takes the time to respond calmly to hostile flames almost always...is someone really hurt by Cart's comments? If so, you need to go to one of those Japanese self confidence schools or learn to blow things off about 2-3 seconds after reading them and move on.

Very legitimate. ^ All I have to say on that matter (as I've said before) is that Cartalas was occasionally funny and that I'm capable of shrugging off online insults with ease.

On topic: outlawing handguns will not stop criminals from using them.

A worthy post that deserves to be at the top of the next page!

On topic: You don't have to shoot people with hand guns, you can pistol whip them as well.

[kyoukan]

They need to pass laws banning concealed carry permits from wanna-be cops that still harbor dirty harry fantasies.

LOL. You are such a troll. Here's a snack for you, cunt. Take off your rose colored glasses and stop making stupid utopian statements without qualifyign them first with, "It would be great if they actually could....". You don't need a narrowed down specific law for everything. You will never have 100% perfection on anything. If you really are a dude playing a stupid whore on the intarweb, you do an amazingly realistic job.

They say that not being able to recognize and insult as overt as that one is a sign of an almost divine level of stupidity.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Hehe Xag... don't even waste your time with Kilmolol.
He usually opts for the 'make shit up' method when posting info to support his little arguments.


He also likes to isolate obscure factoids and present them out of context.
Typical tactics of gun freaks and whackjobs like michael moore.

Actually dickhead...I posted a link from the government site WITH facts. Of course you are probably struggling with that, but I expect it.

Also, the Port Arthur shootings doesn't explain why the numbers stayed higher for a couple years before leveling back out. It also does not explain why all violent crimes have doubled since they enacted it. A 100% increase in a 10 year span is kind of steep wouldn't you think?

[Boogahz]

Hehe Xag... don't even waste your time with Kilmolol.
He usually opts for the 'make shit up' method when posting info to support his little arguments.


He also likes to isolate obscure factoids and present them out of context.
Typical tactics of gun freaks and whackjobs like michael moore.

Actually dickhead...I posted a link from the government site WITH facts. Of course you are probably struggling with that, but I expect it.

Also, the Port Arthur shootings doesn't explain why the numbers stayed higher for a couple years before leveling back out. It also does not explain why all violent crimes have doubled since they enacted it. A 100% increase in a 10 year span is kind of steep wouldn't you think?

Miir couldn't post facts if his keyboard was capable of allowing nothing BUT facts to be posted. I believe it was this same argument that he refused to post where his magical numbers came from about a year ago, but he sure was quick to insist that everyone else post where they got their numbers.

[Zaelath]

By the way shithead.......i went and found Australia's latest figures from their .gov site. Firearm related homicides DID spike to nearly double when their ban went in effect in 1995. Since then they leveled back out. It is also interesting to note that robberies also soared. Assaults have doubled since that time. Sexual assaults....you guessed it....doubled. Guess you really showed me!

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~wcjlen/WC ... ralia.html

By the way, cunt, where are you pulling these figures out of that you "quote"?

What has doubled?

Straight out of the first link from the link you posted:

Table 1: Victims of violent crimes, 1996–2005 (number)
Homicide Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping
1996 354 114,156 14,542 16,372 478
1997 364 124,500 14,353 21,305 564
1998 332 130,903 14,336 23,801 707
1999 386 134,271 14,104 22,606 766
2000 363 138,708 15,759 23,336 695
2001 346 152,283 16,897 26,591 767
2002 365 160,118 17,977 20,989 706
2003 341 157,280 18,237 19,709 696
2004 293 156,849 18,400 16,513 768
2005 295 166,499 18,172 16,787 730

So the homicide rate AS A RAW TOTAL is dropping over time, WHILE THE POPULATION IS RISING. Clearly an indication that gun control is bad.

As to the assault/sexual assault total rising... just think back to the Manly riots and the segment of the community here that has been ecstatically happy since your butt buddy in the White House thought it was a good idea to go around kicking Muslim nations in the balls until they straighten up and fly right. Yes, there's some indication of a regular rise in total numbers along with the population increase over the same time, but there's a sharp rise, right about WHEN?

Robbery, also massively down. Gee, I wonder if that's a reflection of economics (which have been strong here) or gun control.

If you were any fucking thicker we could use you as sound proofing.

[miir]

Dumb and dumber... hehe.

[miir]

I feel the need to address some of Kilmolol's factoids.

... In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Of those 20 million deaths, the VAST MAJORITY were actual soldiers killed in WW2..... moron.

> ... In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
> million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.

Disarming a group of people that they intended to massacre is not gun control. It's carefully planned genocide.

> ... Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Once again, if your goal is to exterminate a specific segment of the population, the first thing you do is disarm them.

> ... China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.

I don't know enough about Chinese history but forced disarming under a communist regeime is a far cry from stricter handgun control that us liberal pussies are suggesting.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981,
> 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Well, that's pretty ignorant.
First off, the civil war lasted about 36 years (not 17)
The left wing guerillas were most definately armed and paid no heed to whatever gun control laws the ladinos or whatever military government of the moment were trying to enforce.

You should try to do some research into the series of events that led up to the civil war in Guatemla. You might realise that gun control is a non factor in their civil war.

> ... Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
> Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

One again, a ruler who is set on genocide is obviously going to remove guns from the hands of the people he wants to get rid of.

Genocide is not a result of disarming.
Forced disarmament was an integral part of his planned genocide.

> ... Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
> million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Same shit again.
Pol Pots goal was genocide. Disarming the people he wanted to kill was just the first step.





I fail to see how any of those examples in any way apply to this discussion about handgun control. I could provide countless examples of democratic countries who have succesfully imlemented and enforced handgun control but you would probably just sitck your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet whilst screaming IM NOT LISTENING!!!!

[kyoukan]

Miir couldn't post facts if his keyboard was capable of allowing nothing BUT facts to be posted.

what the hell

that is like the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[Fairweather Pure]

Miir couldn't post facts if his keyboard was capable of allowing nothing BUT facts to be posted.

what the hell

that is like the dumbest thing I've ever read.

You couldn't detect dumb even if you were a computerized dumb detector set on high.

[Sylvus]

I fail to see how any of those examples in any way apply to this discussion about handgun control. I could provide countless examples of democratic countries who have succesfully imlemented and enforced handgun control but you would probably just sitck your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet whilst screaming IM NOT LISTENING!!!!

That's kind of why I quit this thread. I asked numerous times for any reasons for handguns specifically. Most of the data I've seen has been vs. gun control in general, with results that were ambiguous at best. All the rest of the arguments have been straw man (sup funkmasterr) "you want to take away everyone's guns and repeal the 2nd amendment" arguments. Or better yet the "you're proposing to do a door to door search of every home and take their guns?!?". Once again for the cheap seats, I'm 100% for a person owning a rifle and/or shotgun for hunting, home protection and satisfying your 2nd Amendment rights. As a brief aside, just because you have a right doesn't mean that you need to exercise it.

Give all of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s the popular handgun of the day and I think you'd still see genocide. Arm them all with rifles and it might be a different story, though that's still pretty iffy with an army vs. a disorganized group that's spread throughout the country. But don't get me wrong, I'm all for people being armed in case they need to form a militia to fend off the government or foreign invaders. I would just prefer they had the best tool for the job, and we got rid of lesser tools whose specialty was of a more nefarious nature.

Is it just a coincidence that there's a higher likelihood that someone who voted for Bush is also pro-guns (in general, not necessarily handguns)? Maybe they don't mind inept and borderline criminal leadership because they figure that if it gets too bad they can just form up a posse and storm the White House? An interesting position I've never considered before...

[Leonaerd]

Miir couldn't post facts if his keyboard was capable of allowing nothing BUT facts to be posted.

what the hell

that is like the dumbest thing I've ever read.

You couldn't detect dumb even if you were a computerized dumb detector set on high.

Well, you couldn't be funny if you were a joke machine on the frequency Hilarious.

[Al]

Kilmolol blah blah

I think what you are missing is the fact that gun control (or disarmament, whichever you prefer) led to a large portion of the population being defenseless when they needed to defend themselves. I am a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment, and I do not even own a gun. I do not like the idea of a governing body owning guns that the laws of the land prohibit the citizens of the nation to own.

I didn't read most of the posts prior to this page, but the fact that the discussion holds tells me that there are people who are for banning hand guns. Would those people have me defending my house with a gun that can shoot through the walls and into a neighbors house? (Hunting Rifle) Would those people have me defending my house with a gun that would likely kill someone if I shot them with it, regardless of where I shoot them? (Shotgun, and while I know a shotgun is seldom deadly at range, think of the range at which it would be fired inside a home) I would much prefer to defend myself with a handgun. Were an accident to happen, it is more likely the person is going to survive if they have a .45 slug in their chest rather than a fistfull of buckshot. If guns are going to be legal, handguns must be legal as well.

edit: and certainly some of Kilmol's statistic are inflated by various wars....

[Xatrei]

Also, the Port Arthur shootings doesn't explain why the numbers stayed higher for a couple years before leveling back out. It also does not explain why all violent crimes have doubled since they enacted it. A 100% increase in a 10 year span is kind of steep wouldn't you think?

Actually, the Port Arthur massacre does explain it. We're talking about the annual percentage of homicides that are committed with a firearm. If you look at the chart depicting gun violence that is included in each of the PDF reports, you will see the jump from ~20% to ~30% and back to ~20% for '95, '96 and '97, respectively. This is the spike that you have repeatedly referred to as doubling the number of gun-related homicides from '95 to '96). That jump from 20% to 30% is almost entirely explained rather neatly by that single, horrific incident, and it didn't take a couple of years to level out again - the numbers were back in line the following year.

You keep pointing to some sort of mythical gun grab as the genesis to growing crime figures. You need to stop this. There was no gun grab. There was no seizure of arms. Prior to the buyback program in 1995, several types of weapons were reclassified, making licensing requirements somewhat more strict, but they were still available and still legal, provided that the proper licensing was procured. The people who took advantage of the buyback program were licensed owners who voluntarily exchanged their weapons.

As Zaelath has already stated, you're looking at raw numbers of crimes, not the overall crime rate (the raw number relative to the population). The population of Australia has increased by nearly 17% during the time period that we're discussing. This has had a significant impact on the raw number of violent crimes reported, but not necessarily the rate of violent crime. While some crime rates are up, they are not up by the same degree portrayed with the raw numbers you cite. Further, there is no data to indicate that a tightening of gun ownership laws in 1995 has had anything to do with increases in criminal activity.

It's also important to note that a significant portion of the increase in reported violent crimes that you point to does not necessarily represent an increase in actual crimes committed. For example, there is an increasing willingness among the victims of domestic assaults to come forward when, in years past, these incidents went unreported due to the social stigma and shame associated with them. Increased reporting of domestic crimes is a part of an overall increase in the reporting of criminal activity that in years past were more likely to be overlooked by a more tolerant citizenry. Finally, the overall effectiveness of police operations has yielded an increased amount of criminal acts that are known to the authorities. None of these things are unique to Australia, but here is an Australian government publication discussing the subject.

[miir]

I think what you are missing is the fact that gun control (or disarmament, whichever you prefer) led to a large portion of the population being defenseless when they needed to defend themselves. I am a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment, and I do not even own a gun. I do not like the idea of a governing body owning guns that the laws of the land prohibit the citizens of the nation to own.

My point was that if your country is run by a dictator/madman/psychopath who's masterplan involves ethnic cleansing and/or genocide of some sort, it does no compare to the situation we are discussing now.

We are suggesting stricter controls on handguns.
We are not suggesting the government go around to every citizen's home and force them to surrender every gun under the threat of death and/or imprisonment.
We are not suggesting a gun ban to remove weapons from the hands of political dissidents.

We are discussing ways to possibly lower the amount of gun related homicides and crime in a democratic society by making stricter laws on handgun ownership.


______________________________________


For the first few years, impose very restrictive laws for those wanting to purchase a handgun... Require mandatory participation in courses in responsible handgun use/ownership... Have short term ownership licenses.... have handgun owners be required to submit to psycological assessments if they want to renew their handgun license.

Failure to comply to any of the requirements will result in the forefeit of your handgun license for 10 years. Unless you surrender your handgun, you will be fined and/or face jail time.

Immediately remove all handguns for sale from gun retailers.
Make handguns available for purchase only from government sponsored/approved agencies.

For the first few years, offer a 'no questions asked' buyback program for current handgun owners.

[Neost]

So another slippery slope begins....

Once they take the handguns, then they'll come after the rifles...then the shotguns.

I've never heard this issue discussed as a handgun control issue, but a GUN control issue.

If you believe for a second that it would stop with handguns, you are nuts. If it was concentrated on handguns, once those were abolished or so restricted only government agents could carry them (local, state, federal) then the gun control crowd would puff up with this accomplishment and move on to the next type of weapon they believe we have no right to own/use.

[Nick]

If we take away guns then people don't get to pretend in their life that they are the local John McClain and that my friends is UnAmerican.

[miir]

So another slippery slope begins....

Once they take the handguns, then they'll come after the rifles...then the shotguns.

What slippery slope?
Look at Canada, Australia, England and other developed democratic countries that have very strict regulations when it comes to owning handguns.
I have never heard any anti-gun lobbyists in Canada suggest that they ban rifles, shotguns or any weapon that is primarily used for hunting.

What American laws are in place regarding automatic, semi-automatic and assault weapons?

I've never heard this issue discussed as a handgun control issue, but a GUN control issue.

That's because you're only lisening to the gun-control freaks who think all weapons should be banned. They are in my opinion, just as bad as the gun freaks who think that it's their god given right to own any kind of weapon they want.

There are radical nutjobs on both sides of this issue.

If you believe for a second that it would stop with handguns, you are nuts. If it was concentrated on handguns, once those were abolished or so restricted only government agents could carry them (local, state, federal) then the gun control crowd would puff up with this accomplishment and move on to the next type of weapon they believe we have no right to own/use.

So instead of addressing an issue and trying to come up with a solution that could potentially help decrease gun-related homicides, you'd prefer to do nothing... while Americans continue to muder each other with handguns at an alarming rate?



So far in this thread I have yet to see anyone come up with a compelling reason for owning a handgun.

The fact is that handguns are the weapon of choice in gun-related crime... by a vast margin.

[Funkmasterr]

So another slippery slope begins....

Once they take the handguns, then they'll come after the rifles...then the shotguns.

What slippery slope?
Look at Canada, Australia, England and other developed democratic countries that have very strict regulations when it comes to owning handguns.
I have never heard any anti-gun lobbyists in Canada suggest that they ban rifles, shotguns or any weapon that is primarily used for hunting.

What American laws are in place regarding automatic, semi-automatic and assault weapons?

I've never heard this issue discussed as a handgun control issue, but a GUN control issue.

That's because you're only lisening to the gun-control freaks who think all weapons should be banned. They are in my opinion, just as bad as the gun freaks who think that it's their god given right to own any kind of weapon they want.

There are radical nutjobs on both sides of this issue.

If you believe for a second that it would stop with handguns, you are nuts. If it was concentrated on handguns, once those were abolished or so restricted only government agents could carry them (local, state, federal) then the gun control crowd would puff up with this accomplishment and move on to the next type of weapon they believe we have no right to own/use.

So instead of addressing an issue and trying to come up with a solution that could potentially help decrease gun-related homicides, you'd prefer to do nothing... while Americans continue to muder each other with handguns at an alarming rate?



So far in this thread I have yet to see anyone come up with a compelling reason for owning a handgun.

The fact is that handguns are the weapon of choice in gun-related crime... by a vast margin.

There have been plenty of good arguments presented miir, but when have you ever been one to be compelled by logic?

[miir]

There have been plenty of good arguments presented miir, but when have you ever been one to be compelled by logic?

Are we reading the same thread?
I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong if you'd post all of those compelling arguments in a clear and consice manner.

[Sylvus]

There have been plenty of good arguments presented miir, but when have you ever been one to be compelled by logic?

Would you point out 4 of the plenty arguments for me, please? I asked for the same thing earlier in the thread. Make sure they are for owning a handgun.

You can't just say someone isn't compelled by logic and have it be true. You have to actually present logic, then they have to ignore or shun it, then you can say that they are not compelled by logic. So far most of the arguments have been informal fallacies based on misrepresentation of the position that miir and I share. We say "here are stats on crimes committed with handguns" or "here are how many hanguns are in the US" or "look at the disparity between the numbers of crimes committed with handguns in the US and other civilized countries, as well as how strict their laws are in comparison to ours" or any other number of things, and people come back with "it's in the constitution that you can't take away our guns" or "i need to protect my family" or any other number of arguments that a) we're not opposing or b) we're not supporting. Attributing those positions to us is not providing a compelling reason for owning a handgun.

The only thing that I've seen that is even close to a compelling reason is Al's argument made 5-10 posts ago, though I disagree with it. As far as a rifle being able to shoot into your neighbor's house, sure, that's possible depending on what kind of rifle it is and what part of your house it strikes and what part of your neighbor's house it strikes and so forth. The same thing can be said of a handgun, depending on its caliber and where the bullet is fired. I would suggest that a shotgun is better for home defense, and also disagree with his reasoning there. It's a better deterrant at close range, as it's easier for a would-be criminal to see as well as being more deadly (and therefore scarier for one's opponent to wield) than a handgun. It's also easier to hit something at close range than a handgun, and you're going to want the increased accuracy when you're sleep-dazed or shaking with adrenaline because a criminal is breaking into your house. A handgun isn't going to be any less deadly, you aren't going to be aiming at someones hand or foot, or if you are, you could just as easily shoot someone in the hand or foot with a shotgun. And as Dick Cheney has proven, shooting someone in the face with birdshot doesn't necessarily kill them, I think a .45 slug to the chest from 10 feet down the hallway is going to be every bit as deadly as a fistfull of buckshot.

[Truant]

If we take away guns then people don't get to pretend in their life that they are the local John McClain and that my friends is UnAmerican.

Yippe-ki-yay Motherfucker!

Sorry, carry on.

[kyoukan]

I saw a preview for Die Hard 4. It looked pretty fucking bad ass. Well, the stunts did.

[Sueven]

Would you point out 4 of the plenty arguments for me, please?

You weren't addressing me, but I'd be happy to point out one of them. It's the one I made in response to your previous specific request for arguments.

I'd be happy to make one.

Assumption: We are not viewing guns as inherently bad. We are viewing violence, and especially gun violence, as inherently bad. So the normative goal is to reduce gun violence.

1. The status quo position is relatively unrestricted gun ownership rights.
2. Many people view gun ownership as an individual rights / liberty issue.
3. When we try to enact social change which involves taking away what some people consider to be their rights, we ought to be reasonably certain that the social change will have net positive consequences.
4. The evidence at hand does not demonstrate that gun control leads to a reduction in violence or gun violence. The evidence is either ambiguous or leans in the opposite direction.
5. No one has posted a persuasive explanation as to why, notwithstanding the evidence, gun control would lead to a reduction in gun violence if implemented in a method different than what has been done thus far.

Therefore, we are not reasonably certain that the social change in question would yield positive consequences, and we ought not to make it. In fact, we can't even say that it's more likely than not that it would yield positive consequences.

Xatrei is the only person on this thread, as far as I recall, who's tried to make the sort of argument called for by step 5.

I don't feel like gun defenders have the burden to generate arguments for handguns. I think that gun opponents, given that they are the ones in a position of advocating for social change, bear the burden of demonstrating that such change is worthwhile.

You have to actually present logic, then they have to ignore or shun it, then you can say that they are not compelled by logic.

Funny. I feel like I presented logic and it was ignored. Can I claim that you gun control folks are not compelled by logic?

"look at the disparity between the numbers of crimes committed with handguns in the US and other civilized countries, as well as how strict their laws are in comparison to ours"

I believe I addressed this argument specifically earlier in the thread.

Obviously the reason that this is all an issue is the fact that the United States has so much more violent (and gun) crime than the nations we view as our peers; specifically Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

One difference between the United States and the other countries on that list is that we have a lot more guns floating around in our population than they do. There must be some relationship between these two facts.

Some have interpreted that relationship to be explanatory and causal-- the reason we have more violent (and gun) crime is because there are more guns in our society. The explanation sounds reasonable on its face and fits in with the international comparative analysis that has been mentioned previously.

Those who believe this explanation have pushed for gun control measures in response, reasoning that if more guns = more crime, then any measure which results in less guns must = less crime. Gun control has been a political issue for awhile, enough time for gun control measures to be passed and repealed in a variety of different locations. I don't think it's appropriate to make a blanket statement like "and gun control obviously doesn't work," but the gun control = less gun crime hypothesis has emphatically not been borne out by on the ground experience. The intranational comparisons tell us something much different than the international comparisons. This does not mean that the availability of guns and the implementation or lack thereof of gun control has nothing to do with the problem of violent crime in the United States, but it seems indisputable that it is not the whole story, and seems likely that it is also not the fundamental issue.

The number of guns floating about is not the only difference between the United States and the aforementioned countries. Another difference, for instance, is that our wealth distribution is much more skewed than theirs, meaning that we have a larger lower class and a richer upper class, while they are much closer to distributional equality. As a result, we have larger and more troubled slum areas than they do. Much of the violent (and gun) crime in the United States either occurs in these slum areas or is exported from these slum areas. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the slums have more to do with the violence than the guns do?

I feel like there's a worthwhile discussion waiting for you on this thread if you feel like engaging in it. There are rational arguments being made here. I can't help it that the only people who have responded to my arguments are people who agree with me and people who are angry that I compared them to Cartalas. Except for Xatrei. Thanks, Xatrei.

ps: I voted for Kerry.

[Neost]

You are asking for logic when emotion has more to do with the stance on either side than any logic.

The anti-handgun crowd veiws everyone on the opposite side as a maniacal SOB determined to take out as many people as they can, simply for owning a handgun.

The handgun folks believe the other guys just want to destroy their personal liberties and force everyone to live in a socialist utopia that doesn't exist.

Logic has nothing to do with it but I'll tell you why I own a couple of handguns and always will, I've told it here before. I've been robbed at gunpoint, saw my Dad almost shot in the head (lucky the bullet didn't ricochet off the concrete slab into his head after having the pistol shoved in his eye). I'll never go through that again without fighting back. I seriously believe that if these 2 morons had not been drunk and drugged up, they would have killed me and my Dad. That was Thanksgiving night in 1976, and 30 years later I still dream about it sometimes.

and knowing that it is statistically unlikely I'll ever have to go through it again isn't enough. I feel like I need some form of protection that is easily concealed, easy to use and can be reached from anywhere I am. The only places I don't carry are places that it is illegal to carry.

I regret to inform our more vociferous anti-gun folks that I have never:

1. Pulled a weapon in anger.
2. Left a weapon where someone might get hold of it and hurt themselves.
3. Shot at anyone.
4. Considered walking into a public place and shooting up a bunch of folks.

[Sylvus]

Would you point out 4 of the plenty arguments for me, please?

You weren't addressing me, but I'd be happy to point out one of them. It's the one I made in response to your previous specific request for arguments.

I'd be happy to make one.

Assumption: We are not viewing guns as inherently bad. We are viewing violence, and especially gun violence, as inherently bad. So the normative goal is to reduce gun violence.

1. The status quo position is relatively unrestricted gun ownership rights.
2. Many people view gun ownership as an individual rights / liberty issue.
3. When we try to enact social change which involves taking away what some people consider to be their rights, we ought to be reasonably certain that the social change will have net positive consequences.
4. The evidence at hand does not demonstrate that gun control leads to a reduction in violence or gun violence. The evidence is either ambiguous or leans in the opposite direction.
5. No one has posted a persuasive explanation as to why, notwithstanding the evidence, gun control would lead to a reduction in gun violence if implemented in a method different than what has been done thus far.

Therefore, we are not reasonably certain that the social change in question would yield positive consequences, and we ought not to make it. In fact, we can't even say that it's more likely than not that it would yield positive consequences.

Xatrei is the only person on this thread, as far as I recall, who's tried to make the sort of argument called for by step 5.

I don't feel like gun defenders have the burden to generate arguments for handguns. I think that gun opponents, given that they are the ones in a position of advocating for social change, bear the burden of demonstrating that such change is worthwhile.

You have to actually present logic, then they have to ignore or shun it, then you can say that they are not compelled by logic.

Funny. I feel like I presented logic and it was ignored. Can I claim that you gun control folks are not compelled by logic?

Sure your post is logical, but what point are you presenting there? That you think the onus is on me, in the thread I created asking why handguns are good, to provide reasons why they are bad? Not really what I was looking for, but okay. I did present some links to some things, and stated that I haven't seen any evidence that was better than ambiguous that gun control had a negative impact on rates of violence. You said the opposite, that you hadn't seen evidence that was worse than ambiguous. Not much to go with there. Xatrei posted something about gun control on a larger scale with less of a piecemeal approach over a longer period of time possibly working, which is pretty much exactly what I've been talking about the whole thread, which seems like a pretty good argument against your fifth item.

"look at the disparity between the numbers of crimes committed with handguns in the US and other civilized countries, as well as how strict their laws are in comparison to ours"

I believe I addressed this argument specifically earlier in the thread.

Obviously the reason that this is all an issue is the fact that the United States has so much more violent (and gun) crime than the nations we view as our peers; specifically Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

One difference between the United States and the other countries on that list is that we have a lot more guns floating around in our population than they do. There must be some relationship between these two facts.

Some have interpreted that relationship to be explanatory and causal-- the reason we have more violent (and gun) crime is because there are more guns in our society. The explanation sounds reasonable on its face and fits in with the international comparative analysis that has been mentioned previously.

Those who believe this explanation have pushed for gun control measures in response, reasoning that if more guns = more crime, then any measure which results in less guns must = less crime. Gun control has been a political issue for awhile, enough time for gun control measures to be passed and repealed in a variety of different locations. I don't think it's appropriate to make a blanket statement like "and gun control obviously doesn't work," but the gun control = less gun crime hypothesis has emphatically not been borne out by on the ground experience. The intranational comparisons tell us something much different than the international comparisons. This does not mean that the availability of guns and the implementation or lack thereof of gun control has nothing to do with the problem of violent crime in the United States, but it seems indisputable that it is not the whole story, and seems likely that it is also not the fundamental issue.

I agree with everything you said there other than that it's not the fundamental issue. I don't think there is any evidence that has been presented so far that points toward anything as the fundamental issue, or says that gun control is not it.

The number of guns floating about is not the only difference between the United States and the aforementioned countries. Another difference, for instance, is that our wealth distribution is much more skewed than theirs, meaning that we have a larger lower class and a richer upper class, while they are much closer to distributional equality. As a result, we have larger and more troubled slum areas than they do. Much of the violent (and gun) crime in the United States either occurs in these slum areas or is exported from these slum areas. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the slums have more to do with the violence than the guns do?

Slums have a lot to do with violence, sure. But a lot of other countries also have areas of slums, and still have lower handgun violence rates than us. I don't think you can completely discount the relevance of the evidence that gun control measures in other countries appears to have curbed violent gun crime there, simply because there are other factors that are also at work here. Sure we have our differences, but the differences are only in scale, not in problems that are unique to our country. Some part of the disproportionately high rate of handgun violence in the United States are a function of the number of guns, some the larger skew of wealth, and some for any number of other reasons. You think it's more a reflection of how our society is different that causes more handgun violence, and I don't really care what causes it, I just think that if it were a prohibitively difficult to obtain a handgun, those numbers would (eventually) drop.

I feel like there's a worthwhile discussion waiting for you on this thread if you feel like engaging in it. There are rational arguments being made here. I can't help it that the only people who have responded to my arguments are people who agree with me and people who are angry that I compared them to Cartalas. Except for Xatrei. Thanks, Xatrei.

ps: I voted for Kerry.

I'm not sure why you posted who you voted for, that means absolutely nothing. I simply didn't respond because I didn't feel like you made much of an argument. Not that you didn't speak intelligently, eloquently and with logic, just that you didn't seem to say much for me to respond to.

Logic has nothing to do with it but I'll tell you why I own a couple of handguns and always will, I've told it here before. I've been robbed at gunpoint, saw my Dad almost shot in the head (lucky the bullet didn't ricochet off the concrete slab into his head after having the pistol shoved in his eye). I'll never go through that again without fighting back.

And that's completely understandable. If I would have been put in the same situation I couldn't imagine feeling much differently than you do. But as I can remain pretty emotionally detached, I say the key to preventing something like that from happening is for that guy not to have a gun in the first place.

[Boogahz]

Logic has nothing to do with it but I'll tell you why I own a couple of handguns and always will, I've told it here before. I've been robbed at gunpoint, saw my Dad almost shot in the head (lucky the bullet didn't ricochet off the concrete slab into his head after having the pistol shoved in his eye). I'll never go through that again without fighting back.

And that's completely understandable. If I would have been put in the same situation I couldn't imagine feeling much differently than you do. But as I can remain pretty emotionally detached, I say the key to preventing something like that from happening is for that guy not to have a gun in the first place.

I think that the point several people have tried to make is, how are you going to keep that guy from having the gun?

[Demags]

Here is one valid reason for owning a handgun, people who have to make bank deposits for business. When I worked at a golf course I did the nightly counting and deposits, after the place was closed for the evening. (about 11 pm, we were a golf course and tavern, not a full on bar.) I regularly was carrying as much as 10k to the bank and I certainly wasnt going to do that with my fist as a deterrant.

As far as home protection goes, yes a shotgun is a decent choice IF you can barracade yourself in the room and wait for help. If you have any reason to move about the house, maybe checking on your kids or whatever, any long barrelled weapon is a very poor choice for moving about. People can see them coming around a corner, and the length of the weapon makes it easier for an assailant to get ahold of it and provides more leverage for them to twist it out of your grip. Also the idea that its easier to hit something with a shotgun only applies at range. At room distance the buckshot is still pretty much contained in the plastic wadding, not spread out in a wide area.

The idea of banning handguns seems ridiculous to me, but I definitely wouldnt mind seeing them do a decent background check. We have all these databases of information and yet most of them are not connected for whatever stupid reason, if all these agencies could work together maybe it would be easier to keep them out of psycho's hands.

[miir]

Here is one valid reason for owning a handgun, people who have to make bank deposits for business. When I worked at a golf course I did the nightly counting and deposits, after the place was closed for the evening. (about 11 pm, we were a golf course and tavern, not a full on bar.) I regularly was carrying as much as 10k to the bank and I certainly wasnt going to do that with my fist as a deterrant.

I guess it makes too much sense to hire a bonded agency with trained security personel to pick up and deposit your daily receipts if your business is in a shady part of town.

As far as home protection goes, yes a shotgun is a decent choice IF you can barracade yourself in the room and wait for help. If you have any reason to move about the house, maybe checking on your kids or whatever, any long barrelled weapon is a very poor choice for moving about. People can see them coming around a corner, and the length of the weapon makes it easier for an assailant to get ahold of it and provides more leverage for them to twist it out of your grip. Also the idea that its easier to hit something with a shotgun only applies at range. At room distance the buckshot is still pretty much contained in the plastic wadding, not spread out in a wide area.

In Canada, the burglary and home invasion rate per capita in much lower than in the US. Using pro-gun logic, should it not be the opposite?
Also, the frequency of homicides during burglaries and home invasions is drastically higher in the US.
I guess when a criminal commits a burglary or a home invasion in the US they are much more likely to be carrying a handgun.

The idea of banning handguns seems ridiculous to me, but I definitely wouldnt mind seeing them do a decent background check. We have all these databases of information and yet most of them are not connected for whatever stupid reason, if all these agencies could work together maybe it would be easier to keep them out of psycho's hands.

By the same token, the idea of needing a handgun seems ridiculous to me. I guess because I grew up in a less barbaric culture where guns and violence was not as prevalent.
If you live in an area where you live in fear of an armed intruder breaking into your home, would it not make more sense to invest in an alarm system?
Being proactive and getting an alarm system that might prevent a burglary seems like it would be a lot more effective than buying a handgun so you can shoot someone when they break into your home.

[miir]

I think that the point several people have tried to make is, how are you going to keep that guy from having the gun?

Nobody is claiming that stricter handgun control (or a handgun ban) will be an instant solution.

If you methodically start removing these weapons from circulation, you should see a slow but steady decline in the incidence of handguns being used in the comission of a crime.
If they are more difficult to obtain, the illegal market for them will have demand exceeding the supply... thus driving up the price.

Higher prices will gradually put handguns out of reach of petty criminals and crackheads.


If it weren't for illegal/stolen handguns entering Canada from the US, I think we would see very little gun violence in Canada.

[Demags]

I guess it makes too much sense to hire a bonded agency with trained security personel to pick up and deposit your daily receipts if your business is in a shady part of town.

Yes, most small businesses can afford to pay for something like that.

And no, it wasnt in a shady part of town it was Salem, MI. Doesnt matter if your in downtown detroit or beverly hills, when people know your carrying large amounts of money on a regular basis you are in potential danger.

What exactly is the difference between me legally carrying (and trust me back then in oakland county is was no cakewalk to get a concealed carry permit) and trained vs. some security guard that probably practiced a whole hell of a lot less than I did?

[Al]

My point was that if your country is run by a dictator/madman/psychopath who's masterplan involves ethnic cleansing and/or genocide of some sort, it does no compare to the situation we are discussing now.

We are suggesting stricter controls on handguns.
We are not suggesting the government go around to every citizen's home and force them to surrender every gun under the threat of death and/or imprisonment.
We are not suggesting a gun ban to remove weapons from the hands of political dissidents.

We are discussing ways to possibly lower the amount of gun related homicides and crime in a democratic society by making stricter laws on handgun ownership.

So where does it start? It never starts at a comprehensive ban on all firearms. If you want stricter laws against something as small as a handgun, what is the next step? When that doesn't work, where will we go? Ban knives? Automobiles kill several times more people a year than all violent crimes combined. Why not implement stricter laws regarding the issuance of drivers liscenses (like many nations, and a move that I would endorse as both sensible and intelligent)? I live on the Pennsylvania border in New York, and anyone around here can tell you that Pennsylvania drivers are idiots. In PA it is much easier to get your drivers liscense than it is in NY (and it is quite easy in NY). Is there a correlation to piss-poor driving and ease of legality? You bet. Why is a (terrible and heart-breaking) mass-murder invoking this debate when more people die in a single hour as a result of alcohol involved car accidents than have died in the past year in school shootings? The problem isn't the vehicle, it is the person controlling that vehicle.


You want to require a safety course to own a handgun? Sure, I'm fine with that. You want to expand the background check to involve mental health? I'm not fine with that. Anyone can be called unstable by anyone with the paperwork to back it up. I know a number of people who are diagnosed bi-polar, and some of them own guns. Not one of them could be picked out of a crowd (if you didn't know, you wouldn't know). Not one of them has ever been violent or irresponsible with their guns. Yet every single one of them would be put in a database and labled UNFIT FOR FIREARMS (big red stamp) if a mental health requirement was put in place.

Look up Kennesaw, GA and see what reverse gun control laws have done for them. They enacted a law in 1982 requiring the head of the house to own at least 1 firearm (it has since been amended to preclude felons, concientious objectors etc). In the year following the law, crimes against people fell 74%. If just 1 kid in the classroom at VT had carried a gun that entire massacre (or at least a large part of it) may have been averted. But, no, take the guns away!

I hate the fact that guns are stigmatized as evil.

[Sylvus]

I think that the point several people have tried to make is, how are you going to keep that guy from having the gun?

Through the point that several other people have made: less access to handguns in general. I briefly reskimmed the previous pages and saw reasonable arguments on how that might be accomplished from Xatrei, Tanc, Arborealus, miir and others (sorry if I missed you by name!).

1. Virtually all gun control statistics for the United States that have been presented in this thread have been completely ambiguous and purported by both sides of the argument to support their claims.
2. Gun control measures in the United States have been implemented in piecemeal fashion, not usually on the sweeping national level that other countries have seen.
3. Other countries that have much more restrictive gun control laws almost unanimously have only a fraction of the gun homicide rates that the United States has.
4. There are more handguns, legal and illegal, in the United States than in any of our peer countries.
5. More murders are committed with handguns than with all other weapons combined, and 6 times as many murders are committed with handguns than with all other firearms combined.

Looking at all of those things, as well as my oft-restated position that almost every goal other than crime can be accomplished as easily or more effectively with any type of gun other than a handgun, is there a good reason to even manufacture handguns?

Or how about this completely hypothetical situation and the following rhetorical questions. Say that you know everything that you know right now, all published articles on the internet and news reports on tv and this thread continue to exist, but a higher power swooped down and removed every single handgun and handgun factory from the world. Do you think that we should start construction of some handgun factories tomorrow? Do you think that murder rates would increase, decrease, or stay about the same if no one had handguns? Try to avoid for a minute the "but that's not possible" argument.

I'm looking to avoid straw man arguments about gun fairies removing the actual guns, "if abortion is legal, so should guns", vehicular homicide, 2nd Amendment and the old "they should continue to be legal because they are". I started this thread with the intention of someone providing me with the inherent value or the 'pros' of why handguns are a valuable tool that should exist in this world. We aren't going to solve the world's problems through this thread, and we probably aren't going to prevent a single violent crime with it. It's here for us to discuss an issue, and possibly change someone's mind one way or the other.

I'm also looking to avoid trying to derail the conversation with other factors about economic problems causing crime and emotional problems causing crime, as with the Va. Tech shooter, and so forth. Yes, there are always a number of factors that influence any problem. Ignoring one factor that could help a problem simply because it isn't a panacea seems kind of ridiculous to me. Sure more people are killed by cars every year than by guns, but that's a separate issue. We should focus all energy on only trying to solve the problem that kills the most people, and when that's done move on to the second item on the list?

I believe that if there were much fewer (or no) handguns in existence, there would be less violent crime. Do you agree?

[Al]

I disagree. Violence is as old as violent capabilities. Taking away a means does not remove the motive. People killed each other with knives (Et tu, Brute?) long before gun powder was invented.

[miir]

So where does it start? It never starts at a comprehensive ban on all firearms. If you want stricter laws against something as small as a handgun, what is the next step? When that doesn't work, where will we go? Ban knives?

What about automatic/assault weapons... why are you not crying out against the strict contronls on those types of weapons?

Automobiles kill several times more people a year than all violent crimes combined. Why not implement stricter laws regarding the issuance of drivers liscenses (like many nations, and a move that I would endorse as both sensible and intelligent)?

Enough with the fucking automobile straw-man argument.... why do pro-gun retard bring up automobiles in a gun control argument?




I stopped reading your post after you brought up automobile related deaths...

If you have to use a COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT comparison like that in your argument, there is no point in even discussing this with you.

[Lynks]

Why stop reading, it got better!

I hate the fact that guns are stigmatized as evil.

lol. How dare people link a weapon to death.

[Sylvus]

I disagree. Violence is as old as violent capabilities. Taking away a means does not remove the motive. People killed each other with knives (Et tu, Brute?) long before gun powder was invented.

I don't suggest that it would eliminate violent crime, I just think it would diminish. Why are so many more crimes committed with a handgun than with anything else? In the absence of handguns, you think that the same number of crimes would be committed? The lack of an easily concealable, deadly-force, ranged weapon would cause no one to think twice about knocking over a gas station, robbing someone on the street or holding up a guy making a bank deposit at night?

I think just the opposite.

[Funkmasterr]

I am tired of this thread - the same arguments keep going back and forth, back and forth as usual. I will let you guys continue to go at it, but the truth of the matter is you can come up with all these scenarios involving getting rid of handguns until you have completely racked your mind - but none of them will ever happen.

[miir]

I am tired of this thread - the same arguments keep going back and forth, back and forth as usual. I will let you guys continue to go at it, but the truth of the matter is you can come up with all these scenarios involving getting rid of handguns until you have completely racked your mind - but none of them will ever happen.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

[Sylvus]

I am tired of this thread - the same arguments keep going back and forth, back and forth as usual. I will let you guys continue to go at it, but the truth of the matter is you can come up with all these scenarios involving getting rid of handguns until you have completely racked your mind - but none of them will ever happen.

Thanks for letting us know! I, for one, will miss your acerbic wit and cogent arguments. I look back fondly on all your contributions...

It does amaze me that so many people are jumping to defend her - she is a stupid bitch, and people like you that are constantly defending her right to be a stupid sarcastic bitchy waste of everyones time are beyond pathetic.

p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.

Oh you noticed that too? It sure seems like a whole lot of people don't.

I just think it's a retarded fucking term that I hadn't seen anyone here say until the past week- and now I have seen it so much I want to fucking puke.

Is she paying you? Seriously?

Where did I say straw-man isn't a real term? It annoys me and I refuse to use this most recent term of the week on VV..

Thoroughly gayed? What because a thread that wasn't ever going to go anywhere got derailed? Sorry that the same people on opposing sides of the argument couldn't go back and forth rewording the same shit over and over again for 20 pages!

There have been plenty of good arguments presented miir, but when have you ever been one to be compelled by logic?

[Funkmasterr]

I am tired of this thread - the same arguments keep going back and forth, back and forth as usual. I will let you guys continue to go at it, but the truth of the matter is you can come up with all these scenarios involving getting rid of handguns until you have completely racked your mind - but none of them will ever happen.

Thanks for letting us know! I, for one, will miss your acerbic wit and cogent arguments. I look back fondly on all your contributions...

It does amaze me that so many people are jumping to defend her - she is a stupid bitch, and people like you that are constantly defending her right to be a stupid sarcastic bitchy waste of everyones time are beyond pathetic.

p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.

Oh you noticed that too? It sure seems like a whole lot of people don't.

I just think it's a retarded fucking term that I hadn't seen anyone here say until the past week- and now I have seen it so much I want to fucking puke.

Is she paying you? Seriously?

Where did I say straw-man isn't a real term? It annoys me and I refuse to use this most recent term of the week on VV..

Thoroughly gayed? What because a thread that wasn't ever going to go anywhere got derailed? Sorry that the same people on opposing sides of the argument couldn't go back and forth rewording the same shit over and over again for 20 pages!

There have been plenty of good arguments presented miir, but when have you ever been one to be compelled by logic?

Guess you owned me, lawl. Point is you fucking retards are wasting your breath. This_shit_is_not_going_to_change, so deal with it. Or keep practicing your broken record skillz, you are almost masters!

[Sueven]

I believe that if there were much fewer (or no) handguns in existence, there would be less violent crime. Do you agree?

This is the fundamental point where we're talking past one another. Yes, I agree. Now I'd pose a question to you: Would implementing gun control measures, in a manner which comports with what is realistically possible, yield a country with "much fewer" handguns?

2. Gun control measures in the United States have been implemented in piecemeal fashion, not usually on the sweeping national level that other countries have seen.

Part of the reason for this is that the United States has a federal government while many of these "other countries" have far more centralized systems of government. I don't really know anything about gun control law specifically, but I'd imagine there would be significant constitutional problems to overcome (even ignoring the second amendment) before gun control would even be a possibility on the national level.

I agree that sweeping, national gun control measures would be much more likely to reduce the number of handguns in society significantly enough to have an appreciable effect on violent crime rates. I do not, however, know if it's feasible-- not just because of a failure of political will, but because it may be the kind of thing that our governmental structure is simply incapable of doing.

3. Other countries that have much more restrictive gun control laws almost unanimously have only a fraction of the gun homicide rates that the United States has.

Again, the comparisons are inappropriate, because the United States is vastly different than the countries in question in many respects, not just gun control laws. You can say that all the other factors which lead to violent crime are irrelevant, but they're not. The differences between intranational and international comparisons have already been discussed. You can't rely solely on international comparisons without controlling for all the other variables that affect crime rates, which you've made no effort to do.

4. There are more handguns, legal and illegal, in the United States than in any of our peer countries.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is that they're not really our peer countries. The United States lies somewhere halfway between Western Europe/Japan/Canada/Australia etc and China/Russia/India etc.

and the old "they should continue to be legal because they are".

As far as I'm concerned, this is a totally valid argument. Maintaining the status quo is never a justification. There is, however, a burden on those who want to change the status quo to demonstrate why that change would be positive. In absence of such a demonstration, those who support the status quo can simply say: "I like guns. There's no reason to believe that any steps that could feasibly be taken to restrict their ownership would have any positive consequences." And that is a wholly sufficient argument, at least in a policy sense (in a broader, philosophical sense, it might not be adequate).

I'm also looking to avoid trying to derail the conversation with other factors about economic problems causing crime and emotional problems causing crime, as with the Va. Tech shooter, and so forth. Yes, there are always a number of factors that influence any problem. Ignoring one factor that could help a problem simply because it isn't a panacea seems kind of ridiculous to me.

No one is dismissing gun control because it isn't a panacea. People are dismissing gun control because we think it would be, at best, totally, 100% ineffective, and at worst, counterproductive. The reason that other factors are being raised is because they provide plausible explanations for violence beyond guns, making more reasonable the contention that attacking guns is an ineffective way to attack the problem.

Xatrei posted something about gun control on a larger scale with less of a piecemeal approach over a longer period of time possibly working, which is pretty much exactly what I've been talking about the whole thread, which seems like a pretty good argument against your fifth item.

And I responded to it, laying out what I thought the outlines of the debate that follow ought to be. I can cut and paste that one here too, if you want.

I agree with everything you said there other than that it's not the fundamental issue. I don't think there is any evidence that has been presented so far that points toward anything as the fundamental issue, or says that gun control is not it.

And this would be a very logical subject for argument, notwithstanding the fact that you think the point is irrelevant.

I'm not sure why you posted who you voted for, that means absolutely nothing

Why, because you made a big sweeping generalization that tied those who oppose gun control to being Bush supporters, and also, to being idiots. I wanted to clarify that not all those who oppose gun control are Bush supporters, although you can make up your own mind on the idiot point.

I just think that if it were a prohibitively difficult to obtain a handgun, those numbers would (eventually) drop.

Yes, and the question is whether gun control measures would accomplish this. The way I see it, there are two distinct questions: First, is it possible to implement gun control measures, either via the federal government or via interstate cooperation, that would be sufficiently comprehensive to dent the handgun rate? Second, would the likely immediate raise in violence, which would occur due to the short-run reasons presented by the anti gun control folks here, be strong enough to thwart the gun control regime before the long-run effects of lowering the number of guns in society occurred?

I understand that you want reasons FOR handguns here. I don't have such reasons. I don't own a handgun or any gun and never plan to, so I can't respond to that specific desire of yours. Nevertheless, I feel like this topic is/has become broader than simply a search for reasons why we ought to have guns. If that's all you want to talk about, and you don't think there's the maintain-the-status-quo-in-absence-of-reasons-for-changing argument is meaningful, then OK, I guess you ought to ignore me.

[Sylvus]

Apparently the disconnect is that I was looking at this more from an ideal perspective where you were addressing it more pragmatically. I will not disagree that I don't have any good solutions to propose that would be practical in the short term.

I guess I'm stubborn because of the long term benefits I could see. I know it would be near impossible to stop rich companies from producing handguns, or even limiting the numbers they could produce. I know that any effort to implement more widespread gun control laws, or to try and make it so only government-run shops could sell handguns would be met with fierce resistance and would be near impossible to make happen. Crime rates could very well rise in the short term if stricter gun control were enforced, as legitimate owners turned in weapons or found it harder to obtain weapons, while illegitimate owners went about their business. But in the long term, I think it could lead to less and less guns on the street, which in turn would lead to less violent crime. Which it sounds like we're in agreement on.

That's all I've been trying to get at this whole time, unfortunately it can get difficult to follow when people take their arguments to the absurd or derail completely off-topic or just start bitching about people having a nice, friendly argument.

Why, because you made a big sweeping generalization that tied those who oppose gun control to being Bush supporters, and also, to being idiots. I wanted to clarify that not all those who oppose gun control are Bush supporters, although you can make up your own mind on the idiot point.

Is it just a coincidence that there's a higher likelihood that someone who voted for Bush is also pro-guns

Is that the one you're referring to? Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly, but I was trying to imply the inverse of how you read it. I was trying to say that Bush supporters are more likely to oppose gun control than others who did not vote for him, not that there weren't opponents of gun control on both sides. And if I was posing a less-than-serious question about why they were for people having guns, it was in an effort to make fun of Bush supporters, not anti-gun control people in general. I don't think anyone is an idiot for opposing gun control. I can't say the same for those who support the current administration.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

LOL......an alarm system will prevent someone from breaking into your house? Are you absolutely retarded? Oh boy .....a noisy alarm....somehow it is making me unable to enter!


We could eliminate about 75% of all gun violence in this country by outlawing black males. Maybe we are going about this all wrong!

[miir]

LOL......an alarm system will prevent someone from breaking into your house? Are you absolutely retarded? Oh boy .....a noisy alarm....somehow it is making me unable to enter!

Once again, you lose at reading comprehension.





It has been proven time and time again that a home with an alarm system is less likely to be broken into than a home without.

[Funkmasterr]

LOL......an alarm system will prevent someone from breaking into your house? Are you absolutely retarded? Oh boy .....a noisy alarm....somehow it is making me unable to enter!

Once again, you lose at reading comprehension.





It has been proven time and time again that a home with an alarm system is less likely to be broken into than a home without.

Of course it has... I'm sure that if I know that a large number of people have the sticker saying they have an alarm but don't actually have one, plenty of other people know that same thing.

[miir]

Of course it has... I'm sure that if I know that a large number of people have the sticker saying they have an alarm but don't actually have one, plenty of other people know that same thing.

Could you translate that into something a little more coherent?

[Funkmasterr]

It's perfectly understandable retard - try not to be a dickwad for no reason. Many many people (at least in places I have been) have a sticker on their house stating that they have an alarm - but don't really have one.

So I can't imagine I am the only person that has this knowledge, in which case why would a sticker stating that someone has a home alarm necessarily deter someone ?

[Nick]

Sometimes I find it hard to believe Funkmasterr isn't just a joke account.

[Funkmasterr]

Sometimes I find it hard to believe Funkmasterr isn't just a joke account.

Right, it's a valid point - and the fact that you don't believe it is doesn't surprise me. You are from the mindset of just writing off anything you don't agree with as retarded bullshit.

[miir]

I was confused because I was talking about actual home alarm systems.... not stickers.


I suppose a sticker might be effective if the person considering breaking into your home is mentally retarded.