StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: False dilemma; the "zero gun regulation" crowd invariably points to the fact that countries with gun control still experience shootings in order to claim that gun regulation is completely useless. The fact that these countries typically have one tenth the murder rate of the United States (or less) is quietly ignored.

Did you not get the part about people having to undergo a 3 month waiting period and a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION before they can buy a gun in Australia? All that stuff didn't do a damn thing.....especially the PSYCH testing....

Compare Australia's gun homicide rate to that of America, please.

Can you please explain to me why the scientific method obviously doesn't apply to gun control laws?

Pot calling the kettle black. Compare Australia's gun homicide rate to that of America, please.

I made a point that people like you stubbornly draw false dilemma fallacies; if it fails to stop 100% of all gun homicides, then it's completely useless. Thanks for proving my point (interestingly enough, this is the same fallacy used by the idiots who advocate "abstinence-only", no-condom sex education programs to fight STD transmission in schools).

Please compare Switerland's gun homicide rate w/ Austrialia's, and Austrialia's pre-ban homicide rate with post-ban homicide rate. The point is, if there is no correlation between ownership and firearms and homicide rate, then why ban guns?

Beowulf wrote:Please compare Switerland's gun homicide rate w/ Austrialia's, and Austrialia's pre-ban homicide rate with post-ban homicide rate. The point is, if there is no correlation between ownership and firearms and homicide rate, then why ban guns?

Don't be ridiculous. Guns were not banned in Australia, so it is impossible to compare "pre-ban" and "post-ban" homicide rates. As for Switzerland, they have the benefit of a strong economy based on lazily handling other peoples' money, which makes their culture somewhat unusual, to say the least. To use them as the basis of a correlation is to completely ignore the entire concept of controlled comparisons.

Look at the situation in Canada; of all the gun owners I knew before the latest gun-control bill went into effect, not one has had it taken away, yet NRA idiots keep screaming that the "latest gun-control measure in Canada has not dropped the crime rate", as if all the guns were made illegal. If gun control laws have any effect at all, it would be long-term, not short-term.

Without exception, the anti-gun control crowd quietly replaces "gun control" with "gun confiscation" in 100% of their arguments. You are no exception.

Darth Wong wrote: No, yet we would be crazy to remove the laws against murder! Don't you understand that this is precisely why your argument against any form of gun regulation is a fallacy?

Do guns CAUSE murder? No.....they are merely a TOOL.....

Lets add up the ways we can MURDER someone:

Cars......2,000 pounds of KE

Bow and Arrow

Knives

Throwing Stars

Blunt Objects

Poison

Gasoline

wooden stakes

Fists

Feet

Martial Arts

Radio Controlled Planes with Model Rockets slung under the wing

Computers (Hack into hospital database and switch somones meds around)

Tying someone up in a car on the train tracks in front of a 60 car frieght...

Let's face it, pretty much anything in today's modern world can be used
to kill someone.........

Face it, Shep. You are a violent ex-convict. There is no way any reasonable set of gun laws in the world would allow you to get a gun. And while we cannot make it impossible, we can at least try to make it difficult for you to get around the laws.

Uhm, then how the fuck are these black gangbangers running around
Baltimore MD getting their guns? They're already violent ex-convicts (many
times over)....To them, it's merely a short trip to the underground market
where they can pick up pretty much anything from a pistol to a light
antitank rocket for $80.

Hell, if it's a felony for me to own a gun, then why stop with a puny 9mm....
lets get the fucking MAC-10 SMG while I'm at it....

And there is a court case before the Supreme Court over restoration
of rights...

Used to be before the early 90s, if you were convicted of a crime, you could
send a few forms out to the BATF, and they'd give you your right to own
guns back.....that office was defunded in the early 90s....

I reiterate: the logical fallacy in your argument is identical to that of the moronic "condoms don't work 100%" argument used by the abstinence-only crowd in sex education: it is a "black and white" fallacy. Please look it up.

They don't work. I've looked up the CDC statistics....only 30% effective
against some STDs.......I have better chances of surviving Russian Roulette.

NecronLord wrote:*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*

And you'll take a couple of them with you.

Please, PLEASE read some Solzhenitsyn, in particular, his GULAG ARCHIPELAGO.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I reiterate: the logical fallacy in your argument is identical to that of the moronic "condoms don't work 100%" argument used by the abstinence-only crowd in sex education: it is a "black and white" fallacy. Please look it up.

They don't work. I've looked up the CDC statistics....only 30% effective
against some STDs.......I have better chances of surviving Russian Roulette.

I may be getting into soemthing I shouldn't here...but I have heard that even dentists and doctors have to wear multiple layers of latex gloves for STD protection in the operating room. This I heard from my mom, so don't expect any documentation. But the thing is this: they don't tell the public this...

MKSheppard wrote:Do guns CAUSE murder? No.....they are merely a TOOL.....

Strawman. No one said they cause murder. But the fact that they make it much easier to commit murder is a problem, isn't it?

Lets add up the ways we can MURDER someone: <snip>

All of which are significantly more difficult than whipping out a handgun and shooting him.

Face it, Shep. You are a violent ex-convict. There is no way any reasonable set of gun laws in the world would allow you to get a gun. And while we cannot make it impossible, we can at least try to make it difficult for you to get around the laws.

Uhm, then how the fuck are these black gangbangers running around Baltimore MD getting their guns?

A gigantic volume of legal gun traffic makes it far easier to run a large black market. You don't have enough brainpower to figure out how this works? And how does it change the fact that it's a good thing to make it difficult for violent ex-cons to get guns?

I reiterate: the logical fallacy in your argument is identical to that of the moronic "condoms don't work 100%" argument used by the abstinence-only crowd in sex education: it is a "black and white" fallacy. Please look it up.

They don't work. I've looked up the CDC statistics....only 30% effective against some STDs.......I have better chances of surviving Russian Roulette.

Bullshit, as long as we're talking about condoms being properly used. Please cite the source data, Shep. I have no confidence in your interpretations thereof.

BTW, even if condoms did only improve your odds 30%, that would still be 30% better than 0%, wouldn't it? You still don't understand the glaring logical black/white logical fallacy in your argument. I don't see what the point is of arguing with someone who refuses to accept that logical fallacies are, in fact, fallacies.

verilon wrote: I may be getting into soemthing I shouldn't here...but I have heard that even dentists and doctors have to wear multiple layers of latex gloves for STD protection in the operating room. This I heard from my mom, so don't expect any documentation. But the thing is this: they don't tell the public this...

There's a lot they don't tell the public...especially about how hardy HIV is...

The Abstinisence folks are more logical than the condom folks..

Going from a 100% chance of infection to a 30% chance of infection is
nice.....but it doesn't cut it as far as MY HEALTH is concerned....

MKSheppard wrote:

NecronLord wrote:*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*

And you'll take a couple of them with you.

Please, PLEASE read some Solzhenitsyn, in particular, his GULAG ARCHIPELAGO.

Example

WAKO

Feds won

In what part of you deranged gunpowder addicted mind do you think an assault rifle is going to do fuck all to a MBT? The millitary can kill you without you even hearing them coming. This is a bullshit "it'll stop the feds shovin us around" nonsensical crap pile

MKSheppard wrote:The Abstinisence folks are more logical than the condom folks..

And since you can't get any anyway (apart from your butt-buddies when you were in prison), that option looks really good to you.

Going from a 100% chance of infection to a 30% chance of infection is nice.....but it doesn't cut it as far as MY HEALTH is concerned....

Personal choice. But it doesn't mean condoms should be discouraged. Are you fucking allergic to logic or something?

NecronLord wrote:*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

MKSheppard wrote:

verilon wrote: I may be getting into soemthing I shouldn't here...but I have heard that even dentists and doctors have to wear multiple layers of latex gloves for STD protection in the operating room. This I heard from my mom, so don't expect any documentation. But the thing is this: they don't tell the public this...

There's a lot they don't tell the public...especially about how hardy HIV is...

*thwap* I know you are gonna at soem point pinthis on the homosexuals, so I will say this: it is because people in general are sexually active and are unwilling ot go get tested. ho knows why? I don't. But the people that don't get tested and have HIV spread it to others that don't get tested who spread it and so on and so on...

The Abstinisence folks are more logical than the condom folks..

This is true.

Going from a 100% chance of infection to a 30% chance of infection is nice.....but it doesn't cut it as far as MY HEALTH is concerned....

Well, you know what? You made a better point with the abstinence bit.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

NecronLord wrote:*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

Could you elaborate, please? How does the Soviet Union's example prove that people with small-arms will be able to overthrow a military? The Soviet Union collapsed from within, due to political forces unleashed in an attempt to liberalize the state under controlled conditions; its military was never conquered by rifle-wielding militias.

(sigh)

I guess its time to give my idea on gun control again.

First and foremost, I have to say that I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. That said, that does not mean every person should be able to walk into a grocery store and buy an M-16. There is a difference between the right to own a weapon and owning a weapon.

As far as I am concerned, people have the right to own cars within the US. Just because they have that right does not mean they can use that car. You have to fill out ownership forms, titles, and even have to get licensed to use the thing. The United Kingdom even goes a step further where if you get a license on an Automatic transmission, that’s all you can drive. If you get a license on a stick shift, you can also drive automatics.

I am sure you can see where I am going with this. I think that people who want to own a gun have to follow some pre-conditions to own a gun. They have to take gun safety classes, they have to pass tests, have to have a safe place to store the weapons, they have to have a free record (no felonies in the record), etc… It might take some time, but once you have the license, that allows you to buy guns. There would be a variety of licenses, pistol (semi-auto or revolver), shotgun, rifle (bolt and lever or semi-auto), etc… You would have to get licensed for each thing you want to get. But once you have the license, you are free to buy weapons from registered dealers without problem. They can take your license and run it through a database instantly to see if you are qualified. Registering the weapon is a snap, and you can take it home. In other words you jump through all the hoops well before hand, then it gives you a free reign later on. If you can’t pass all the requirements, no license, no guns.

Now, people who invest a fair amount of money into a license, or guns, do not want their investment wasted. Money is valuable. People who want a gun to commit a crime want something fast and easy, and already have a record. They wouldn’t be able to use this system to get weapons. Those with the license will be relatively well off and don’t want to loose what they have. To help encourage them, each license would also be taxed to a small degree.

Now, what about Assault Rifles, high powered rifles, sub machineguns, and other military grade weaponry? Before 1996 the US allowed people to buy new military grade weaponry or fully automatic weaponry. I have seen pictures of people with their collections with the likes of a Steyr Aug, CAR-15, MP5-SD, and AK-47. Even today you can still buy pre-ban weapons. It requires something called a fully automatic license. I think something along these lines should continue. An expensive collectors license for those who want something other then normal weapons. A Collectors license would be very expensive. If someone wants an M16 or P90, they have to save a bloody fortune. The weapons themselves sell for several THOUSAND dollars. The license itself would also have to be at least 10,000 dollars. People would have to make a major investment to get such licenses, but if they can afford it, they certainly don’t want to loose it.

Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

BTW, on Shep's "abstinence folks" vs "condom folks", notice how he draws yet another black/white fallacy; he pretends that the "condom folks" are 100% condom, 0% abstinence.

In reality, all of the condom-inclusive sex education programs also point out that the only 100% guaranteed method of eliminating the possibility of STD transmission if abstinence, but that if you're going to have sex (which is actually an option for a lot of people, despite Shep's example), you should wear a condom. How is that illogical? It isn't, hence the need for the abstinence-only people to artificially polarize the situation, just as the NRA types do with the gun-control issue by pretending that any form of control is equivalent to an outright ban.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

NecronLord wrote:*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

I believe he means Afganistan.

An assault rifle and c4 and training and several thousand friends and mountainour terrain, i could go on. I could also throw in veietnam. This is however off the point.

Alyeska wrote:Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

Hear hear. Of course, since that means a violent ex-con like Shep would be excluded so that only people like you and me could legally own them, he won't agree ...

NecronLord wrote:I believe he means Afganistan.

I discussed Afghanistan earlier in this thread. He should have at least tried to address that point.

Darth Wong wrote: Strawman. No one said they cause murder. But the fact that they make it much easier to commit murder is a problem, isn't it?

OK, then lets ban cars and have their ownership restricted to the government
because some nut could decide to drive through a crowded schoolyard
at 100+ MPH, splattering kids all over his Buick's chrome grille......

Guns aren't really that great for killing someone unless you hit them
in a vital area....however, massive blunt trauma works much better,
and there are much better ways to get this....baseball bats, anyone?

I've heard they are very very popular in Northern Ireland, even if nobody
plays baseball there

All of which are significantly more difficult than whipping out a handgun and shooting him.

Do you have any experience with people who have been shot repeatedly?

One of my cell mates in jail had scars all over his body, including
one right next to his heart from a .45 hollowpoint. Another guy had
been shot repeatedly by the police over and over and over when he
tried to run them over with a stolen car, and he was OK, except for
the fact that he needed a cane......at 21.

You seriously underestimate how hard it is to kill a human being. It is not
"Oh I hate you!" *Bang* and you die....

A gigantic volume of legal gun traffic makes it far easier to run a large black market. You don't have enough brainpower to figure out how this works? And how does it change the fact that it's a good thing to make it difficult for violent ex-cons to get guns?

Then why are the London police coming underfire from Uzi clone SMGs after
guns were all banned?

Bullshit, as long as we're talking about condoms being properly used. Please cite the source data, Shep. I have no confidence in your interpretations thereof.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf
Enjoy, Mike.

Darth Wong wrote:

NecronLord wrote:I believe he means Afganistan.

I discussed Afghanistan earlier in this thread. He should have at least tried to address that point.

with a quip like "tell that to the soviet union" i think that reading the thread is likely out of the question.

verilon wrote: *thwap* I know you are gonna at soem point pinthis on the homosexuals, so I will say this: it is because people in general are sexually active and are unwilling ot go get tested. ho knows why? I don't. But the people that don't get tested and have HIV spread it to others that don't get tested who spread it and so on and so on...

I wasn't going to turn this into a homo bashing thread, but I know from
people in the medical industry, that HIV is not the "it dies within minutes
of exposure to sunlight, hence is harmless"

HIV is a fucking VIRUS, people....there have been tests where the HIV
virus has been bombarded with lots of really nasty shit and then after
that treatment, gone on to infect lab animals....

Darth Wong wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Please compare Switerland's gun homicide rate w/ Austrialia's, and Austrialia's pre-ban homicide rate with post-ban homicide rate. The point is, if there is no correlation between ownership and firearms and homicide rate, then why ban guns?

Don't be ridiculous. Guns were not banned in Australia, so it is impossible to compare "pre-ban" and "post-ban" homicide rates. As for Switzerland, they have the benefit of a strong economy based on lazily handling other peoples' money, which makes their culture somewhat unusual, to say the least. To use them as the basis of a correlation is to completely ignore the entire concept of controlled comparisons.

Look at the situation in Canada; of all the gun owners I knew before the latest gun-control bill went into effect, not one has had it taken away, yet NRA idiots keep screaming that the "latest gun-control measure in Canada has not dropped the crime rate", as if all the guns were made illegal. If gun control laws have any effect at all, it would be long-term, not short-term.

Without exception, the anti-gun control crowd quietly replaces "gun control" with "gun confiscation" in 100% of their arguments. You are no exception.

Canada... Where a significant number of people failed to register their guns?

Lets take a look at California. A couple years ago, they decided to disallow a certain type of rifle, and require registration of any existing ones in CA. Some people didn't get theirs registered by the deadline, but the California Government decided to allow those rifles to be registered anyway, and set a new deadline. Then a little while afterwards, they changed their mind and decided to use that registry to take away the rifles from those who registered their rifles... (Gun control turned into gun confiscation...)

And let me rephrase my question... Compare the homicide rates before gun control in AU and after they implemented gun control.

Please also point out where in my argument I turned gun control into gun confiscation in my original post.

MKSheppard wrote:OK, then lets ban cars and have their ownership restricted to the government
because some nut could decide to drive through a crowded schoolyard
at 100+ MPH, splattering kids all over his Buick's chrome grille......

True, but it is kinda hard to conceal a car in your coat pocket and take in into a building...

Guns aren't really that great for killing someone unless you hit them
in a vital area....however, massive blunt trauma works much better,
and there are much better ways to get this....baseball bats, anyone?

We should issue baseball bats to the military and police forces...

You seriously underestimate how hard it is to kill a human being. It is not
"Oh I hate you!" *Bang* and you die....

That sniper was what, 10 of 13 using that method...

MkSheppard wrote:OK, then lets ban cars and have their ownership restricted to the government ...

Strawman fallacy. How about "let's regulate cars and have their ownership restricted to licensed drivers" ... wait a minute, that's exactly what we do, isn't it? Do you have a problem with that?

All of which are significantly more difficult than whipping out a handgun and shooting him.

Do you have any experience with people who have been shot repeatedly? <snip a lot of claims about how people can survive gunshot wounds>

Blah blah blah, yeah, Shep. <SARCASM>Yeah, guns are of little value in killing someone</SARCASM>. I guess the militaries of the world are foolish to equip their soldiers with these silly little harmless toys

Then why are the London police coming underfire from Uzi clone SMGs after guns were all banned?

Black/white fallacy again. How high is the rate of gun violence there, as opposed to a typical American city?

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf
Enjoy, Mike.

[EDIT: quoting fixed]

Don't be an asshole, Shep. You're supposed to describe the justification for your conclusion in some detail, not just cite a vague conclusion or point people to a link and expect them to do all the work or else your argument is validated by default. This is no different than all the pricks who E-mail my creationism site and give me a link to answersingenesis.org as an argument. That's a 49-page document; which part of it are you referring to? In the summary, they state that condoms always significantly reduce the risk. Am I supposed to leaf through 49 pages to do your work for you?

Darth Wong wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

Hear hear. Of course, since that means a violent ex-con like Shep would be excluded so that only people like you and me could legally own them, he won't agree ...

Of course, you do realize that this isn't how gun control works, right? Gun control depends on using the media to hype up a specific type of gun, so that they can't put restrictions on it, irregardless of whether or not it has any difference on actual preformance. To use as an example, the assualt weapon ban. This bans rifles based solely on looks. There is no functional difference between a gun labeled an assault rifle, but an assault rifle looks mean to the public, so it's an easy target...

Beowulf wrote:Canada... Where a significant number of people failed to register their guns?

Evasion. How does that address the point? The gun-control law was not a ban, and even if they had registered, they would still have their guns. It was just a tax grab anyway, which is why I oppose it. The concept of gun-control (not gun "bans" despite the insistent NRA strawman) is still valid.

Lets take a look at California. A couple years ago, they decided to disallow a certain type of rifle, and require registration of any existing ones in CA. Some people didn't get theirs registered by the deadline, but the California Government decided to allow those rifles to be registered anyway, and set a new deadline. Then a little while afterwards, they changed their mind and decided to use that registry to take away the rifles from those who registered their rifles... (Gun control turned into gun confiscation...)

Ah, slippery-slope fallacy. Favoured friend of the NRA. The fact that it happened in one particular incident (involving one particular kind of gun) in which that was the original stated intent anyway is hardly validation of your fallacy.

And let me rephrase my question... Compare the homicide rates before gun control in AU and after they implemented gun control.

See previous rebuttal addressing that question and the logical fallacy therein.

Please also point out where in my argument I turned gun control into gun confiscation in my original post.

You described a gun-control law in Australia as a "ban".