Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by iconoclast at 7:58 am on June 26, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html A blow to those gun control idiots. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 7:58 am on June 26, 2008 Damn, gun control is a good idea, IMO. -- Posted by iconoclast at 7:59 am on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. -- Posted by Kokasion at 7:59 am on June 26, 2008 Duh... It wasn't working.. .Crime Capital of the Nation I believe? "Holy shit, no one has Guns... WTF are they going to do about mine?" -- Posted by marshmellowman at 8:00 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:59 pm on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. That's not my argument. -- Posted by Narfle the Garthok at 8:01 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:00 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:59 pm on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. That's not my argument. Then what is? -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:06 am on June 26, 2008 What is your argument. I like to hear all angles. I don't think any of them defeat mine. Regulating Gun Ownership is necessary, but an all out ban isn't an efficient practice. I don't expect that there weren't any Shootings under this Ban. I'm sure there would have been more cases of Incidents where a Licensed Owner injured/killed another individual (Or even himself XD). But I bet that now there will be less incidents in which a licensed/illegal owner injured/killed another individual. All together decrease in statistics. -- Posted by iconoclast at 8:09 am on June 26, 2008 i say fuck the statistics -- Posted by marshmellowman at 8:13 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Narfle the Garthok at 4:01 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:00 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:59 pm on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. That's not my argument. Then what is? The fact that besides rifles for hunting and whatnot, guns have no real purpose for the general population. The laws should be a lot stricter and an indepth background check should be carried out if they want one. They'd have to renew the permit every 6months or so. But the simpler thing to do is just not allow gun possession. It will be out of reach to the mentall ill people that might commit crimes and those hard ass dudes that have guns will always have them anyway. Allowing the general population to have guns doesn't solve the problem. -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:14 am on June 26, 2008 In Soviet Russia, Statistics fuck YOU!!! -- Posted by iconoclast at 8:15 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 11:13 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Narfle the Garthok at 4:01 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:00 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:59 pm on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. That's not my argument.    Then what is? The fact that besides rifles for hunting and whatnot, guns have no real purpose for the general population. The laws should be a lot stricter and an indepth background check should be carried out if they want one. They'd have to renew the permit every 6months or so. But the simpler thing to do is just not allow gun possession. It will be out of reach to the mentall ill people that might commit crimes and those hard ass dudes that have guns will always have them anyway. Allowing the general population to have guns doesn't solve the problem. defense, protecting oneself from the govt's potential tyranny, the fact that you dont NEED a reason, etc. and mentally ill people are statistically not more violent than mentally 'sane' people, even though statistics dont really matter when deciding personal freedoms "Let's simply ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it!" -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:16 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:13 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Narfle the Garthok at 4:01 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:00 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:59 pm on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. That's not my argument.    Then what is? The fact that besides rifles for hunting and whatnot, guns have no real purpose for the general population. The laws should be a lot stricter and an indepth background check should be carried out if they want one. They'd have to renew the permit every 6months or so. But the simpler thing to do is just not allow gun possession. It will be out of reach to the mentall ill people that might commit crimes and those hard ass dudes that have guns will always have them anyway. Allowing the general population to have guns doesn't solve the problem. If I had a knife, and you didn't have I knife. I'd be less scared of you, and if I wanted something, I'd know I can get it easier. However, if you had a gun, I'd say fuck that. It's the uncertainty of who has a gun and who doesn't that will make a difference. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 8:19 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:16 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:13 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Narfle the Garthok at 4:01 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:00 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 3:59 pm on June 26, 2008 We must ban everyone from having something because a few idiots will abuse it. That's not my argument.   Then what is? The fact that besides rifles for hunting and whatnot, guns have no real purpose for the general population. The laws should be a lot stricter and an indepth background check should be carried out if they want one. They'd have to renew the permit every 6months or so.    But the simpler thing to do is just not allow gun possession. It will be out of reach to the mentall ill people that might commit crimes and those hard ass dudes that have guns will always have them anyway. Allowing the general population to have guns doesn't solve the problem. If I had a knife, and you didn't have I knife. I'd be less scared of you, and if I wanted something, I'd know I can get it easier. However, if you had a gun, I'd say fuck that. It's the uncertainty of who has a gun and who doesn't that will make a difference. But statistics prove it doesn't make a difference. People aren't scared of everyone because they may have a gun. Arming everyone won't solve the problem, it will just make it worse. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 8:22 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:15 pm on June 26, 2008 defense, protecting oneself from the govt's potential tyranny, the fact that you dont NEED a reason, etc. and mentally ill people are statistically not more violent than mentally 'sane' people, even though statistics dont really matter when deciding personal freedoms You can have personal freedom with guns, similarly you don't need guns to maintain your freedoms. You don't have to have guns to protect from tyranny, because you can bet your ass that a tyrant will take over if they wish. They will then be removed from power, and removing them doesn't need guns, nor would it really help at all. If you're so afraid of tyranny that you think you need guns to prevent it, then here is an even bigger problem. That's what I'm saying, there should be a reason for owning a gun, not just giving it to those that ask just because. -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:24 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:19 am on June 26, 2008 But statistics prove it doesn't make a difference. People aren't scared of everyone because they may have a gun. Arming everyone won't solve the problem, it will just make it worse. If statistics don't make a difference, how would you explain the higher crime rate in DC over a large portion of cities all over the world? Disregarding Third-world-countries. -- Posted by iconoclast at 8:32 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 11:22 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:15 pm on June 26, 2008 defense, protecting oneself from the govt's potential tyranny, the fact that you dont NEED a reason, etc. and mentally ill people are statistically not more violent than mentally 'sane' people, even though statistics dont really matter when deciding personal freedoms You can have personal freedom with guns, similarly you don't need guns to maintain your freedoms. You don't have to have guns to protect from tyranny, because you can bet your ass that a tyrant will take over if they wish. They will then be removed from power, and removing them doesn't need guns, nor would it really help at all. If you're so afraid of tyranny that you think you need guns to prevent it, then here is an even bigger problem. That's what I'm saying, there should be a reason for owning a gun, not just giving it to those that ask just because. thats a bad argument, 'lets not have guns because we might lose'. if the public is significantly armed and theres enough insurgency, itll make their job much harder or even impossible and guns are mostly just an insurance policy against fuckheads who want to attack you or trample all over your rights -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:37 am on June 26, 2008 I withdraw my statement of Higher Crime Rates in DC. Evidence disputes my claim, but only due to gentrification,(Most likely other variables are involved as well.) as observed by Wikipedia. XD Moving the problem, not solving it. That doesn't mean I withdraw my argument. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 8:44 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:24 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:19 am on June 26, 2008 But statistics prove it doesn't make a difference. People aren't scared of everyone because they may have a gun. Arming everyone won't solve the problem, it will just make it worse. If statistics don't make a difference, how would you explain the higher crime rate in DC over a large portion of cities all over the world? Disregarding Third-world-countries. Correlation =/= Causation. -- Posted by Kokasion at 8:49 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:44 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:24 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:19 am on June 26, 2008 But statistics prove it doesn't make a difference. People aren't scared of everyone because they may have a gun. Arming everyone won't solve the problem, it will just make it worse.    If statistics don't make a difference, how would you explain the higher crime rate in DC over a large portion of cities all over the world? Disregarding Third-world-countries. Correlation =/= Causation. I bet you can't rationalize that illogical statement with a paragraph. -- Posted by iconoclast at 8:54 am on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments -- Posted by marshmellowman at 9:01 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:49 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:44 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:24 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:19 am on June 26, 2008 But statistics prove it doesn't make a difference. People aren't scared of everyone because they may have a gun. Arming everyone won't solve the problem, it will just make it worse.   If statistics don't make a difference, how would you explain the higher crime rate in DC over a large portion of cities all over the world? Disregarding Third-world-countries.    Correlation =/= Causation. I bet you can't rationalize that illogical statement with a paragraph. What? You don't believe I understand the meaning? Get over yourself. You're trying to attack my credibility and not even the argument anymore. I know perfectly well exactly what that means. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 9:03 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:54 pm on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:07 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 8:54 am on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments In accordance with my previous argument, it's not. She's just attempting make my argument seem like I Over-simplified. I'll admit, the Statistics seem unrelated to the cause, but they're a representation of action. An action that can be discouraged in the uncertainty of equal retaliation. Of course, she also seems to support the Right to bare Arms, if it's heavily regulated. The cause seems to be poverty, according to statistics. Marshmellowman, I wasn't denying that you understood it's meaning, I was denying that you understood it was your only counter-argument to mine. And you couldn't actually apply it in a sentence, against my argument. Only that it was sometimes applied in similar cases, so you think it applies all the time. You relying on it to disregard my argument. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:09 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:03 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:54 pm on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. In all fairness, It fell for a few years after the ban was enforced. But then it doubled it's previous high in '91 -- Posted by marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:22 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:03 am on June 26, 2008 That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. As I stated, originally. There will possibly be more incidents in which a licensed owner injures another individual. (Inevitable since guns are licensed to people now.) Ect ect. Though, it will probably be hard to gauge, since Gentrification is on-going. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:23 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply. Is that because it's infallible?    I understand. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 9:36 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 5:23 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply. Is that because it's infallible? I understand. No. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:43 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:01 am on June 26, 2008 I know perfectly well exactly what that means. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. By the way. Thanks for that, I only understood it in english. But, to you, I'd argue Post Hoc, Ergo propter hoc. But we both know proper investigation would support both of our claims, and neither of us are "Jumping" to conclusions. Those "Illogical Fallacies" can't be applied in every instance you encounter them. Especially not when they're accompanied with an example other than statistics, to support it. Neither of us are stupid enough to rationalize that Guns aren't used to harm people. But neither of us can argue that guns aren't used to protect people. -- Posted by Kokasion at 9:44 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:36 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 5:23 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply.    Is that because it's infallible?    I understand. No. It was a joke. Pages: 1 2  Next