Undeniable proof that gun control works

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Stonewall said:
This is absolute nonsense. I see you chose New York for your example. Why not Chicago? Washington DC? More Guns, Less Crime Besides, the 2nd amendment is a God-given right. It preceded government and our Constitution, therefore it's not something that a government can legitimately take away.

Spoons make people fat.

You are exactly right. You obviously didnt read the entire thread. You just proved the point of cherry picking. Anyone can come up with an example to prove anything. Go back and reread. Best b
 

Old Stonewall said:
This is absolute nonsense. I see you chose New York for your example. Why not Chicago? Washington DC? More Guns, Less Crime Besides, the 2nd amendment is a God-given right. It preceded government and our Constitution, therefore it's not something that a government can legitimately take away.

Spoons make people fat.

It is called Constitutional Republic...Country is ruled by the Constitution, any political figure that want follow their oath of office should be impeached since the first line of their oath is "I will protect and defend the constitution"....
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
So your saying murder stats are up because they are making up murders??? Murder stats are published ever year, for the murders stats to be increasing and not be accurate they would need to be making up murders that never happen.

I guess that is one way to keep people from moving to Chicago.

TH - why is this example any less valid than the "examples" that you have posted. Save for the fact that you disagree with the conclusion. Point is that anyone can play the example to prove my point game. Want me to prove the earth is flat - ill find done great article, stats and studies to back that up.

Do you think the only factor that determines whether their is a lot of crime or murder in a city or country is whether there is gun control or not? You don't think economic conditions, education, age of population, etc, etc have a significant impact? Come on we are all well educated folks around here. We see through this stuff. Best.
 

You are exactly right. You obviously didnt read the entire thread. You just proved the point of cherry picking. Anyone can come up with an example to prove anything. Go back and reread. Best b

Have to disagree. That was failure to understand correlation vs. causality. I think cherry picking is different. Either way, both fallacies.
 

TH - why is this example any less valid than the "examples" that you have posted. Save for the fact that you disagree with the conclusion. Point is that anyone can play the example to prove my point game. Want me to prove the earth is flat - ill find done great article, stats and studies to back that up.

Do you think the only factor that determines whether their is a lot of crime or murder in a city or country is whether there is gun control or not? You don't think economic conditions, education, age of population, etc, etc have a significant impact? Come on we are all well educated folks around here. We see through this stuff. Best.

I think this is a pretty good counterpoint. Everybody uses examples around here. Why is Stockpicker's any less or more valid then any of the others?
 

Crispin said:
Have to disagree. That was failure to understand correlation vs. causality. I think cherry picking is different. Either way, both fallacies.

Picking Chicago as an example I think is cherry picking - giving its the poster child in the US for increasing crime.

The is it just control issue that is the sole cause of the increased crime would be correlation vs causality.

Most of the posts on this board contain multiple fall ivied of course.

Again, everyone had the right to their own opinion. But doesn't every thinking person want their opinion to be based on the best information, etc.

Anyone attempting to boil down issued as complicated as crime to a single issue - it's just foolish. We all know better than that.
 

No, I agree with you on fact it is many factors, My point is it isn't gun control that causes the lowering of crime, armed citizens are a deferent to crime...


TH - why is this example any less valid than the "examples" that you have posted. Save for the fact that you disagree with the conclusion. Point is that anyone can play the example to prove my point game. Want me to prove the earth is flat - ill find done great article, stats and studies to back that up.

Do you think the only factor that determines whether their is a lot of crime or murder in a city or country is whether there is gun control or not? You don't think economic conditions, education, age of population, etc, etc have a significant impact? Come on we are all well educated folks around here. We see through this stuff. Best.
 

Everyone wants to believe a simple ban on guns will either increase or decrease crime rates. The problem is that we all live in the real world where there are infinite other factors at play. I do believe an armed populace (legally) is a significant deterrent to crime. I also believe that arming the populace alone will do little to stop violence. There are many more factors in play and any suggestion that one simple action will solve the world's ills is silly.

With that said I also firmly believe I am better able to defend myself and family when I carry a gun. I have been in a life threatening situation while unarmed and I am here simply because the other guy decided not to kill me. Its a very discomforting position to know a violent felon has total control over your life and death. When I'm armed I now have much more influence, and that is the way it should be. I may not control every situation but now I can influence many more of them to preserve my life.
 

Educated population is the best defense against tyranny.

No an ARMED populace is the only defense. You can be as informed as you like, but if there are gov't troops at your front door and you have no means to resist, that information is useless. The constitution was written based on real world events just experienced by the founding fathers.
 

No an ARMED populace is the only defense. You can be as informed as you like, but if there are gov't troops at your front door and you have no means to resist, that information is useless. The constitution was written based on real world events just experienced by the founding fathers.

THAT was THEN... THIS is NOW!
 

Funny how you can down other peoples statistics but yours we can all believe I don't put stock in it.

Again I say according to you seizure is control.

Siezure would be control, however, they are not siezing weapons, they are simply regulating what people are now able to get. How do you think the government would gain enough power for a takeover? I am really curious about how people think this would even happen.
 

THAT was THEN... THIS is NOW!

With all due respect, I don't think you are in the position to declare a difference between then and now for everyone.
 

No an ARMED populace is the only defense. You can be as informed as you like, but if there are gov't troops at your front door and you have no means to resist, that information is useless. The constitution was written based on real world events just experienced by the founding fathers.

Times have changed a lot since our founding fathers wrote any words that Americans are to live by. If EVERYONE has the right to have guns there is no doubt that almost every felon will have a gun. I am a huge supporter of gun rights and I love my guns and plan to get more butI do not believe that people need assult rifles which are the only guns being banned, assult rifles have one purpose, and one purpose only...to kill. The chances of government troops coming to your house are so pathedically low that it just shouldnt even be a concern. There is no way our ever decreacing military would raid American homes. There is a significantly better chance that someone will be a victim of a home invasion involving common criminals than for it to be our military. And you do not need an assult rifle to defend yourself when there are so many more options such as shotguns which are not subject to the ban, hunting rifles and hand guns, none of which are subject to the ban.
 

Times have changed a lot since our founding fathers wrote any words that Americans are to live by. If EVERYONE has the right to have guns there is no doubt that almost every felon will have a gun. I am a huge supporter of gun rights and I love my guns and plan to get more butI do not believe that people need assult rifles which are the only guns being banned, assult rifles have one purpose, and one purpose only...to kill. The chances of government troops coming to your house are so pathedically low that it just shouldnt even be a concern. There is no way our ever decreacing military would raid American homes. There is a significantly better chance that someone will be a victim of a home invasion involving common criminals than for it to be our military. And you do not need an assult rifle to defend yourself when there are so many more options such as shotguns which are not subject to the ban, hunting rifles and hand guns, none of which are subject to the ban.

If you know so much about your guns, then please try to put together a rational explanation for why "assault" weapons should be banned. No matter how you answer you will be showing all of us how little you understand about guns and balistics. You are okay with handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles, but not what is being called an assault rifle? That makes absolutely no sense, so please enlighten us.
 

If you know so much about your guns, then please try to put together a rational explanation for why "assault" weapons should be banned. No matter how you answer you will be showing all of us how little you understand about guns and balistics. You are okay with handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles, but not what is being called an assault rifle? That makes absolutely no sense, so please enlighten us.

I already stated the difference. Assult rifles are meant to kill. Why do you feel you need an assult rifle? I do not support the ban on assult rifles but I know enough to have common sense and know that personal safty can be achieved with shotguns, rifles, and hand guns. People like to expoit the second amendment right that we have the right to bare arms but apparently get bored with learning the meaning and fail to realize that means they have the right to take up arms and protect their nation not that everyone has any right to own every single thing they want to. Now since you failed to recognize the difference between an assult rifle and a hunting rifle, it leads me to believe you don't have much understanding of firearms. Please do your research before asking me. I am a very busy person and do not have the time to break down the difference between several types of guns.
 

I already stated the difference. Assult rifles are meant to kill. Why do you feel you need an assult rifle? I do not support the ban on assult rifles but I know enough to have common sense and know that personal safty can be achieved with shotguns, rifles, and hand guns. People like to expoit the second amendment right that we have the right to bare arms but apparently get bored with learning the meaning and fail to realize that means they have the right to take up arms and protect their nation not that everyone has any right to own every single thing they want to. Now since you failed to recognize the difference between an assult rifle and a hunting rifle, it leads me to believe you don't have much understanding of firearms. Please do your research before asking me. I am a very busy person and do not have the time to break down the difference between several types of guns.

You can be as busy as you want and still not be able to effectively articulate the difference between the "assault" rifle you want banned and any other semi-auto weapon. So, let me save you some time. The differences in the actual mechanism of the weapons doesn't exist. These very scary "assault" rifles that you claim are so bad are the exact same weapons as the others you claim to be okay. And here's the kicker...they all kill. I know this may inconvenience your relaxation up on your high-horse, but I'm going to educate you anyway.

These "assault" rifles that people want to ban are generally NOT high powered. As a matter of fact almost every "hunting" rifle has more power and superior balistics. Second, lets take a look at the things that define an "assault" weapon in the pending legislation:

Adjustable stocks and pistol grips: Neither does anything but make a gun more comfortable and adaptable to multiple people. These features simply allows it to be adjusted for better handling between different people and different shooting positions.

Detachable magazines: Allows you to quickly reload the weapon. YOu have an intruder in your house (or multiple in many documented cases) and you have the ability to defend yourself with as little manipulation of the weapon as possible. Fact: The less manual manipulation of a gun, the less chance of a malfunction.

Silencers: These have been heavily regulated by the Federal government since the 1940s and require a 6 month process to obtain. The process includes a $200 tax stamp and background check by the FBI

Grenade Launchers: Really? Grenades are already regulated by the Fed government. Good luck getting one.

Flash Hiders: Apparently if the gun doesn't have a huge flash of fire coming out of its muzzle its an assault weapon?

If you want to rant about anti-gun agendas feel free. But expect to be called out for lack of understanding and facts when you do it front of those of us who have actual knowledge. Oh, and the entire line about assault weapons are made to kill is stupid. All firearms are meant to cause a loss of blood pressure which incapacitates whoever is shot. If you think otherwise you are clueless. Any firearm will kill, whether its black or pink, or a .22 caliber or .50. But I guess in lala land ya'll are comfortable standing in front of a 30-06 or 12 gauge?
 

Last edited:
If you know so much about your guns, then please try to put together a rational explanation for why "assault" weapons should be banned. No matter how you answer you will be showing all of us how little you understand about guns and balistics. You are okay with handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles, but not what is being called an assault rifle? That makes absolutely no sense, so please enlighten us.

Google the word "Assault" then maybe you can figure it out on your own.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top