The Logic Fallacy of Guns for Everyone

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Planet teleX
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:

Only 1 year of data, from decades ago?
Thats your argument??

How about the long term trend of increasing gun control...

link

or, how about you look at homicides in the US over the last 30 years, where there has not been gun control, homicides have dropped...............DRAMATICALLY

edit on 15-12-2012 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)

No not really.

reply to post by SpearMint

Of course not, but guns increase it. You're not even paying attention to what I say, or answering what I have to say, you're asking silly questions. I don't see what that quote has to do with anything, it's meaningless in this context because it's all based on Australia's previous stats and still no where near as high as the US.

It was a sample taken in the year immediately afterward, rendering it absolutely relevant.
It proves your statement 'but guns increase it (crime)', incorrect.

Are you still sure I'm not paying attention?

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Of course not, but guns increase it. You're not even paying attention to what I say, or answering what I have to say, you're asking silly questions. I don't see what that quote has to do with anything, it's meaningless in this context because it's all based on Australia's previous stats and still no where near as high as the US.

It proves your statement 'but guns increase it (crime)', incorrect.

Uh... no it doesn't.... explain your thinking.

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
or, how about you look at homicides in the US over the last 30 years, where there has not been gun control, homicides have dropped...............DRAMATICALLY

Looking at various numbers, the rate appears to have increased until about 1990, peaked then, and since halved but levelled off about 10 years ago.
1randomlink

I state my graph looks better on
- amount of reduction
- continual reduction to this day

reply to post by SpearMint

My apologies if I'm not being clear.

It shows that after the ban of guns in Australia, crime actually worsened. While the population was armed the criminals were less likely to take chances and prey on the otherwise weak.

Its not the fact that people have guns that scares criminals - it's the fact that they don't know what situation they are walking into when they commit a felony. Just the knowledge that people are free to own one does more for prevention.

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint

 

My apologies if I'm not being clear.

It shows that after the ban of guns in Australia, crime actually worsened. While the population was armed the criminals were less likely to take chances and prey on the otherwise weak.

Its not the fact that people have guns that scares criminals - it's the fact that they don't know what situation they are walking into when they commit a felony. Just the knowledge that people are free to own one does more for prevention.

edit on 15/12/2012 by Planet teleX because: (no reason given)

It's 12 months of data, it doesn't prove anything. Crimes fluctuate and you can't magically make all guns disappear. Look at that graph above.

reply to post by SpearMint

Crimes fluctuate and you can't magically make all guns disappear.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Crimes fluctuate and you can't magically make all guns disappear.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

... and therefore 12 months of data doesn't mean anything, like I said. You're avoiding what I said by taking a sentence out of context.

reply to post by pirhanna


That the best you can do? this is a troll thread

Do you honestly think every gun owner carries their gun on them ALL the time? I leave mine at home. Never carry. So should I not be able to defend my own house? I started buying firearms when I had a BIG gun pulled on me, I called 911, let it ring literally at least 20 times. No answer. Repeated this 2 more times!! no answer, no call back. I will never call 911 to protect me again.

Really? I need a gun to kill? Don't need any fire arms,I can do it bare handed and not have to worry about ballistics,

I'm a Brit in Britain and i'm thankful that there is a right to bear arms in the US. When America is disarmed it'll mean the entire world is another few steps closer to a global tyranny. That's a good enough reason right there for gun ownership.

Every human being should have the right to own and use a gun to defend their life, their family, and their property. It may be cliche but a gun is a very good 'equalizer' in a wide range of dangerous situations. Also it's true that gun prohibition would have next to no effect on criminals acquiring and using guns.

Oh and, comparing the use of a handgun in say a home invasion type scenario to the use of a nuke is just dumb. And anyway hasn't the ownership of nukes by nation states not in fact protected the world from nuclear war. Have you never heard of MAD? I think that the more nations that have nukes the better, just as the more the people own guns the better. When everyone is armed people tend to behave in a more reasonable manner.

Yes, if everyone carried a gun, a lot of people would die. BUT, who would it be that actually died? Innocent victims or the people who are trying to take advantage of others and would have a gun whether they're legal or not?
Which is better
a. only the "criminals" having guns and committing terrible crimes with them
b. all people having guns (who want them) and the ones that would have committed the crimes getting shot while trying to do so and being the only fatality or one of the few as opposed to many.

Yes, in the beginning of it, there will be many deaths, some will be innocent, most will be those who are the "problem", the violent, the criminally insane, the people prone to violence, the bullies who have someone stand up to them now that they can. Lives would be lost and it's terrible, horrible, all life is sacred.
BUT, I would prefer the lives that are lost be the ones who were going to take away many innocent lives if they hadn't been stopped. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. The good of the many is not going to be achieved in banning all guns because only those willing to break the law will have them at that point. The criminals will have them whether it's legal or not legal. I want the non-criminal to be able to stand up and say "no, not here, not now" and defend themselves and others from the people who would take advantage of their "power" in holding a gun and take innocent lives.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We just have to be sure we're preventing the right thing. Gun banning would leave the innocent, the law abiding, the "good" people from having guns. The opposing side would then have all the power. That's not prevention, that's compounding the problem.

I guess I just prefer the Old West to Mad Max. The world is changing, what is it that we want it to become? The Old West helped develop the nation and the success that we have experienced in our lives, Mad Max would be the beginning of the end. I prefer sticking around a while and moving forward to a better place, not a worse one.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Planet teleX
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:

Only 1 year of data, from decades ago?
Thats your argument??

How about the long term trend of increasing gun control...

link

or, how about you look at homicides in the US over the last 30 years, where there has not been gun control, homicides have dropped...............DRAMATICALLY

edit on 15-12-2012 by Credenceskynyrd because: (no reason given)

No not really.

yes yes really

In 1973 the homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000 population, in 1979 it was 9.8 per 100,000 population, in 1983 it was 8.7 per 100,000 population, in 1992 it was 9.8 per 100,000 population


It is now 4.8


Do the maths

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
In 1973 the homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000 population, in 1979 it was 9.8 per 100,000 population, in 1983 it was 8.7 per 100,000 population, in 1992 it was 9.8 per 100,000 population

It is now 4.8

Do the maths

The maths says thats a reduction of about half what it was.
Australias reduction is much much better, AND the rate according to that graph is now about 0.1.

Like one poster already said, these monsters are killing unarmed people in locations which are known for not allowing weapons. If it weren't guns, then it would bombings. Guns are tools, such as a knife, club, bow & arrow, or even an auto could be used as tools to kill. The fact is, the person is the killer, the weapon is the tool to complete the task.

As far as guns go, I would be very comfortable in a room where everyone has a firearm. Verses, a room where the only one armed is a psychopath. It's not about living in a wild west scenario, it's about leveling the field. Law abiding citizens who are unarmed don't stand a chance with a criminal who obtained a gun on the black market. I'll take my chances with a 12 gauge and 00 buckshot instead of a baseball bat, when faced with armed intruders.

Because let be real, when SECOMDS count, the police are MINUTES away.

That's the most nonsensical thing I've heard lately. If you really think there's a logical connect between owning a firearm & owning a nuke, you're deluding yourself.

Any nutcase that wants to kill a bunch of people can just drive a vehicle into a crowd of people and kill more than a gun will usually kill. There are just too many ways to kill people. Guns can and do save lives every day. Nobody needs an AK47 but home protection is common sense. Doors get kicked in every night. If the home owner has a weapon they can defend their family. I wish it were as simple as banning guns but unless you have some magic dust that makes all weapons vanish instantly around the world the unintended consequences of taking away self protection will be horrendous.

You can't go every saturday morning and set off your bomb. I see what you're saying here and I follow your logic, but I think it goes beyond the normal, affordable scale anyway. An AT4 rocket launcher would probably be a better analogy. I actually think when you get into the level of suitcase nukes and F-16s that anyone who can afford one can get one already.
I disagree with any idea of arming the public by government decree as vehemently as I disagree with disarming in the same manner.

Originally posted by jimmiec
Nobody needs an AK47

??? Why not? AKs are great hunting rifles and if my life ever depended upon hunting for food, it would be the only thing I take into the woods. You can fancy one up with funky guards and covers, but underneath is still just a regular old rifle, just a really reliable and accurate one.