The Logic Fallacy of Guns for Everyone

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Before we make guns illegal, lets make Meth, Cocaine and Heroin illegal.

Oh wait they are.

And criminals sell them regularly.




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Nice point, but......... Take nukes away from America and let everyone else keep them. What happens then? Boom or takeover. You can not compare a nuke to a gun. I think the outcome would be the same if banned though. Criminals will then have nothing to worry about. We have nukes to assure that no one else uses theirs and the same goes for most countries. Look at countries with gun bans. Citizens become prisoners while criminals still run around with guns.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Why don't you educate yourself before openning your mouth.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.


I can't learn to do this



or do this



and I certainly can't do this



with a nuclear weapon. Only a psychopath or a soldier owns a gun for only ONE reason. Only someone who doesn't own one themselves ...or to be fair, had a very bad experience around or by guns ...can think otherwise about the 120 million people in this nation who own and shoot guns recreationally.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I don't support guns for everyone and think the semi-automatic and automatic weapons need to be done away with, but I do support gun ownership for responsible people who know how to use them and don't treat them like toys.

Gun ownership is a big responsibility and if done correctly can be very useful and can make our lives better.

I like hunting and that requires a gun. I take good care of my guns and treat them with the utmost respect. They are not in the reach of children and are under lock and key. Yes, they could be stolen but it would take a lot of effort to do that and they would be reported immediately.

If I lived in a bigger area with a high crime rate, I wouldn't be opposed to having a permit for a concealed carry for protection purposes. But, I don't live in a bad area so I don't need one. Since I don't need one, I don't carry one. All it takes is a little bit of common sense, not banning anything and everything.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.




It is now, and always has been a violent world. Deal with it ! Carry a weapon or not. Cast your fate to the wind and / or pray. If you or anyone thinks they can " Fix " ( Assuming one believes violence is NEVER the answer ) humans to behave as cute puppies they will go mad. I legally carry a weapon. I've never had to utilize it as a device to kill ( as some would believe is there ONLY purpose ) I hate these threads. The very people who start or support their point of view are attempting to assert THEIR will upon others. FIX that and you may come close to your utopian society.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.



Well, put simply, the world has been doing this since the 1950's. It was called the Cold War and it was a policy of deterence, and it worked. Nuclear-armed countries would never make a move against another nuclear-armed country because it pretty much meant mutally-assured destruction. We are still doing it today. Our subs on patrol are our nuclear deterents.

I know you meant to poke fun but you actually provided a significant and historical example, but on a much larger scale.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Is this supposed to be a real discussion of the gun problem? I doubt it. I think it is more about saving a few lives while putting all of us at risk. Guns are not really anymore risky then a hand axe or knife. These need to be handled carefully is all. The real problem is people. Are you WILLING TO KILL? To kill those who would attack you? I do not think so. You want someone else to do it for you. That is the problem.

Let us consider what would probably happen if everyone of sufficient age and training was required to carry one. Oh and by the way, if you are not capable of carrying a gun safely then you should not be capable of voting either.


Back to the point. When someone then attacked someone with a weapon they WOULD BE KILLED! Problem solved. As those others who might have thought of attacking someone with a weapon see their friends killed then they would not do it. OR THEY TOO WILL BE KILLED! In short order those who are criminally insane, or even criminally inclined would either die or change their ways. Society is saved.

The two problems with this. 1. Everybody would have to become responsible for their actions or lack of actions. Since it seems the primary aim of society these days, or at least as it is taught to kids, is NOT TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY for anything. That will be a hard nut for society to crack as they have spent so much time and energy trying to remove that responsibility from us. Point 2. You will have to KILL. I realize this is a hard concept for people raised to let someone else do their killing for them. I can hear it now "OMG he wants us to kill poor little criminals, to shoot them down in the streets!" Yep! That is the only CIVILIZED thing to do.
Shocking is it not?

I realize that to most of you, who have not had to fight for their lives, is a difficult concept. Get over it. Do your own killing from now on. Do not hire mercenarys in blue to do it for you. You are aware that when police were started their primary job was not to protect the citizenry, don't you? It was their job to go after the one's that ran before the citizens could kill them. It was up to the citizen's to protect themselves.

Ok flame away or you could actually bother to think about the problem rather then spouting platitudes. Their is a real problem with this society and it goes way back to almost the beginning. If you want to solve the problems we have you have to look at the BASIC concepts, not precedent like they do in law to get people off from crimes, but the beginning BASIC laws and concepts. A lot of people like to pat themselves on the back and say they have evolved because they do not kill people themselves, they have the police, the mercenarys, to do it for them. I disagree with that we have evolved concept. I think society has devolved instead.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Hey OP, good use of "reduction to the absurd" always nice to see someone really bringing intelligence and logical argument to the debate. That said, I entirely disagree with you. A small nuke, once detonated would kill many, not just the intended target. A nuke would also have radioactive fallout which would sicken many people, not only the intended target. A handgun or even an assault rifle can be aimed and fired with precison to kill only the aggressor.

Someone said a few posts back that if there were no handguns we wouldn't need guns for self defense. This is incorrect. If my 120lb wife is taking a walk and a 230lb ex con is out taking a walk.... you see where this is going. It is a sad but true reality that the only tool we have currently which completely levels the playing field is a well placed bullet. Tasers are not always reliable and sometimes won't pierce thick clothing and a knife is a poor choice for a tiny peaceful person to try to employ.

As a society we have become so risk averse and lawsuit-happy that we would rather all be unarmed and at the mercy of any gang of thugs or gun wielding maniac than allow average citizens to have the best available means of self defense. All of these shootings could have been averted had every citizen in this country taken their personal safety in their own hands. Only psychic cops can prevent crime before it's occurred.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


There's no practical use for an atomic weapon, in fact its very existence is illogical. There are practical reasons for guns.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Well the day you get rid of all the bad guys , I will give up my means to defend myself and my family .



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 

the point of allowing everyone to carry guns is because they can be used to defend oneself and others. large scale explosive devices have no defensive capabilities, and cause massive collateral. bullet holes in the wall are an easy fix compared to rebuilding the whole building, or a city. also, bombs cannot be used to target just one person, much less a nuke.

just the knowledge that everyone is packing will dissuade most shootings and save lives in all mass shootings. civilians are twenty times less likely to kill an innocent in a mass shooting than the police are. true story.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 



Your logic is faulty and you basically prove my belief.

nuclear devices are just that....devices. Unless someone detonates it the device is as harmless as a firearm.

So, Nuclear devices still do not kill people, people kill people. Try again.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Please read this article, it was written by someone who lived thru the horror that the parents of those children are living thru today. It happened 12 years ago and if anyone has a "right' to speak on the subject this woman surely did. If you agree share it with everyone you know. www.examiner.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
In other news murder is illegal and yet people still murder each other. We need stricter bans on murder.

Also, rape has been made illegal in at least 57 states. However enforcement cannot be quantified in at least 7.

More at 11.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


Tell me what semi-automatic means to you.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMike
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


Tell me what semi-automatic means to you.


You don't know what a semi-automatic weapon is??

semi-automatic - a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing.

Not single action, not bolt action, it requires no extra effort to fire off multiple rounds. Real hunters don't use them, real hunters don't need multiple shots to perforate their prey.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join