Canadian elected's weighing in.... Scary
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill.
Guns are not "used to kill". They are designed to kill. If, how, and when they accomplish that task is up to the person who picks it up.
I tried to till my land with a pistol last year and it worked poorly.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill.
Guns are not "used to kill". They are designed to kill. If, how, and when they accomplish that task is up to the person who picks it up.
I tried to till my land with a pistol last year and it worked poorly.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I read the quotes in the original post, they do make sense.
What is the problem?
What part makes sense?
I read the quotes in the original post, they do make sense.
What is the problem?
What part makes sense?
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I have no problem with gun ownership at all. Personally I would never own one, but I know plenty of people that do, and that's fine.
If law and order breaks down in your town/city(Katrina, LA Riots, Ferguson, Baltimore), you would prefer to not be armed and only the police and bad guys be armed? Ok....
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill.
Sure thing. They are tools. They are used to save lives and prevent crimes eons more than they are used to kill.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace, that's about as accurate as saying that the death penalty is a deterrent against murder, it still happens anyhow.
Laughable statement. People in the know would highly disagree. Like police officers. As a former police officer I can 100% disagree with your assertion. As would all of my coworkers. Hundreds of thousands of police officers would disagree with your uninformed nonsense opinion.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace
Hypothetical question? You have just been elected dictator. What do you do to combat crime? What ideas do you implement? What do you think will work?
Ignoring your logical fallacies, here's evidence that increased gun ownership does in fact correlate with an increase in violent crime http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html
And that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent to crime. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...eter-criminals/
Also an eon is an undetermined period of time.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I have no problem with gun ownership at all. Personally I would never own one, but I know plenty of people that do, and that's fine.
If law and order breaks down in your town/city(Katrina, LA Riots, Ferguson, Baltimore), you would prefer to not be armed and only the police and bad guys be armed? Ok....
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The problem I have is that guns are in fact used to kill.
Sure thing. They are tools. They are used to save lives and prevent crimes eons more than they are used to kill.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace, that's about as accurate as saying that the death penalty is a deterrent against murder, it still happens anyhow.
Laughable statement. People in the know would highly disagree. Like police officers. As a former police officer I can 100% disagree with your assertion. As would all of my coworkers. Hundreds of thousands of police officers would disagree with your uninformed nonsense opinion.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Deterring crime isn't accomplished through an armed populace
Hypothetical question? You have just been elected dictator. What do you do to combat crime? What ideas do you implement? What do you think will work?
Ignoring your logical fallacies, here's evidence that increased gun ownership does in fact correlate with an increase in violent crime http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html
And that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent to crime. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...eter-criminals/
Also an eon is an undetermined period of time.
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: slowdime
Originally Posted By: slowdime
AZjeff said:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I read the quotes in the original post, they do make sense.
What is the problem?
How can they possibly make sense if you aren't familiar with the bill in question nor the existing laws and procedures in place?
I read the quotes in the original post, they do make sense.
What is the problem?
How can they possibly make sense if you aren't familiar with the bill in question nor the existing laws and procedures in place?
Originally Posted By: surfstar
I thought Obama was coming to take your guns?
Legalized weed and gay marriage...!!! Oh no, what are you guys ever going to do in this changing society?
Careful, one of the greatest things of a true democracy, is its ability to evolve* over time.
*yep, I know, scary concept, right?
He's also coming to take away your money and give it to black people, and the feminists are coming to take away your manhood, and the gays are coming to molest your children and turn them gay.
Even with all the money being poured into lobbying (a $4 billion a year business btw) and political campaigns by a handful of people bent on bettering their own situation, and the suppression of voters that may not agree with them there has been progress lately. The 2 party system reinforced by the first past the post electoral system is clearly broken, a recent study showed that head lice were in fact more popular than congress. Gridlock caused by childish political maneuvers by our elected officials is detrimental to everyone regardless of ideology.
I thought Obama was coming to take your guns?
Legalized weed and gay marriage...!!! Oh no, what are you guys ever going to do in this changing society?
Careful, one of the greatest things of a true democracy, is its ability to evolve* over time.
*yep, I know, scary concept, right?
He's also coming to take away your money and give it to black people, and the feminists are coming to take away your manhood, and the gays are coming to molest your children and turn them gay.
Even with all the money being poured into lobbying (a $4 billion a year business btw) and political campaigns by a handful of people bent on bettering their own situation, and the suppression of voters that may not agree with them there has been progress lately. The 2 party system reinforced by the first past the post electoral system is clearly broken, a recent study showed that head lice were in fact more popular than congress. Gridlock caused by childish political maneuvers by our elected officials is detrimental to everyone regardless of ideology.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
If a politician runs for office and holds a position favoring gun control and he wins the election, the right of the people to vote for a candidate they mostly agree with has been exercised. The initiative in Washington state you speak of was voted on directly by the people, their rights were exercised and the outcome reflected popular opinion within the state.
Elections and referenda cannot nullify intrinsic human rights.
Would you agree with the abolition of freedom of speech based on popular referendum? Freedom of the press? Due process?
If a politician runs for office and holds a position favoring gun control and he wins the election, the right of the people to vote for a candidate they mostly agree with has been exercised. The initiative in Washington state you speak of was voted on directly by the people, their rights were exercised and the outcome reflected popular opinion within the state.
Elections and referenda cannot nullify intrinsic human rights.
Would you agree with the abolition of freedom of speech based on popular referendum? Freedom of the press? Due process?
I don't understand how the unregulated access and possession of a deadly weapon is an intrinsic human right. The positive correlation between increased gun ownership and increased gun deaths infringes upon an actual intrinsic human right.
Nice slippery slope fallacy by the way. Comparing gun rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and due process is an apples and oranges argument.
Nice slippery slope fallacy by the way. Comparing gun rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and due process is an apples and oranges argument.
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
The 2nd Amendment guarantees it. Darn Constitution.
Man, I come here to read about oil. Should know better. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind.
Man, I come here to read about oil. Should know better. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The positive correlation between increased gun ownership and increased gun deaths
Actually, it has been exhaustively proven that the correlation is negative. http://amzn.to/1SRV4Zm
The positive correlation between increased gun ownership and increased gun deaths
Actually, it has been exhaustively proven that the correlation is negative. http://amzn.to/1SRV4Zm
Originally Posted By: BubbaFL
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The positive correlation between increased gun ownership and increased gun deaths
Actually, it has been exhaustively proven that the correlation is negative. http://amzn.to/1SRV4Zm
Refer to my earlier posting of a link to a study refuting John Lott's claims.
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
The positive correlation between increased gun ownership and increased gun deaths
Actually, it has been exhaustively proven that the correlation is negative. http://amzn.to/1SRV4Zm
Refer to my earlier posting of a link to a study refuting John Lott's claims.
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I don't understand how the unregulated access and possession of a deadly weapon is an intrinsic human right.
Speaking of slippery slope fallacy.....
Maybe a thorough reading of the US Constitution would help.
Of course, those who oppose gun ownership and other Constitutional rights usually engage in anti-Constitutional rhetoric anyway.
Quote:
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.
Like Russia and some South American countries?
I don't understand how the unregulated access and possession of a deadly weapon is an intrinsic human right.
Speaking of slippery slope fallacy.....
Maybe a thorough reading of the US Constitution would help.
Of course, those who oppose gun ownership and other Constitutional rights usually engage in anti-Constitutional rhetoric anyway.
Quote:
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.
Like Russia and some South American countries?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
The 2nd Amendment guarantees it. Darn Constitution.
Man, I come here to read about oil. Should know better. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind.
Nope. The board rules prohibiting political discussion don't seem to matter. Threads are started on hot button issues and the entire thread usually consists of like minded people having a figurative circle jerk.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees it. Darn Constitution.
Man, I come here to read about oil. Should know better. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind.
Nope. The board rules prohibiting political discussion don't seem to matter. Threads are started on hot button issues and the entire thread usually consists of like minded people having a figurative circle jerk.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Speaking abstractly, when freedoms of one infringe upon the rights of another, those freedoms need to be reconsidered and/or regulated if need be.
Watch out folks, I feel the need for...another logical fallacy.
Speaking abstractly, when freedoms of one infringe upon the rights of another, those freedoms need to be reconsidered and/or regulated if need be.
Watch out folks, I feel the need for...another logical fallacy.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I don't understand how the unregulated access and possession of a deadly weapon is an intrinsic human right.
Speaking of slippery slope fallacy.....
Maybe a thorough reading of the US Constitution would help.
Of course, those who oppose gun ownership and other Constitutional rights usually engage in anti-Constitutional rhetoric anyway.
Quote:
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.
Like Russia and some South American countries?
If you had read my earlier post you would know that I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm opposed to unfettered access by anyone.
And Russia and South America are both places with some degree of internal conflict and by some metrics can be considered developing. The industrialized nations I was referring to are in western and northern Europe.
Originally Posted By: slowdime
I don't understand how the unregulated access and possession of a deadly weapon is an intrinsic human right.
Speaking of slippery slope fallacy.....
Maybe a thorough reading of the US Constitution would help.
Of course, those who oppose gun ownership and other Constitutional rights usually engage in anti-Constitutional rhetoric anyway.
Quote:
Empirical evidence from other industrialized nations also shows a correlation between low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun death.
Like Russia and some South American countries?
If you had read my earlier post you would know that I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm opposed to unfettered access by anyone.
And Russia and South America are both places with some degree of internal conflict and by some metrics can be considered developing. The industrialized nations I was referring to are in western and northern Europe.
- Status
Similar threads
