Michael New. Skar?

[JP Dogberry]

Phear my Spurious Logic:

I am right, therefore, all those who disagree with me are wrong.

I am right because I have this opinion. This opinion is right. if it was not right, I wouldn't have the opinion. If it was not right, it would be wrong, and if I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't think it.

I, however, think it, therefore it must be right. Therefore, everyone who disagrees with me is, by way of spurious logic, wrong.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

In the Urban area I live in I still know a half dozen people who augment their food supply with hunted deer. In less Urban areas I know at least 50 people who hunt regularly for food purposes. Should they not be allowed to own guns.  It seems a little presumptuous of someone in a foreign country to suggest that they know whats right for everyone else.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, the adult sniper was, I believe, former military.

your fear of people on the street is primarily paranoia. People who live in societies with the right to bear arms rarely have any fear of random people ont he street. Because we can SEE that most people are reasonable. No one runs around with them just to be crazy.

Ok, there's some evidence that it reduces violence. Just like there's evidence that it has nothing to do with the violence level. That the evidence is not conclusive is definitely true.

I still don't see what the rarity of a weapon has to do with its dangerous nature. Surely, by your logic, outlawing spears would reduce the amount of violence commited by spears.  to be more serious, you're so paranoid about guns, are you paranoid if you see someone carrying a sword? I can think of a hundred reasons why someone would be carrying a sword on the street that have nothing to do with him trying to kill me with it. It's a dangerous weapon. It can do a lot of damage. Yet you dont' fear it? I find your fear of guns irrational.

What I'm saying is that assuming an armed public makes us "closer to war" is a false assumption. The US has an armed public. We are not currently anywhere near a violent revolution. Again, I find your fears irrational.

Finally, I'm astounded that you've missed so many points. No one said the US was oppressive. The argument is that the public should be allowed to arm themselves IN CASE the government becomes oppressive. As I've pointed out, there are MANY cases where armed rebellion would have been the only way to prevent such oppression. These cases in apparently open and free democracies. Yes, peaceful approaches can make changes, but not in every case, even in free and open societies.

[Archon]

SE addressed much of what I would have mentioned quite nicely in the last post. One exception though.

Okay, to use the washington sniper example.  I'd say dangerous person/people, yes?  But... from what I understand, they were civilians.  Who most likely wouldn't have been able to get guns.

I didnt say anything about people having to be former military to be dangerous. I didnt say this because it just isnt true. There are civilians who are better at using guns than some people in the military. And civilians can get guns. They can get illegal guns all day long. It is not impossible to get a gun, civilian or not.

[Master Xaio]

I still don't see what the rarity of a weapon has to do with its dangerous nature. Surely, by your logic, outlawing spears would reduce the amount of violence commited by spears.  to be more serious, you're so paranoid about guns, are you paranoid if you see someone carrying a sword? I can think of a hundred reasons why someone would be carrying a sword on the street that have nothing to do with him trying to kill me with it. It's a dangerous weapon. It can do a lot of damage. Yet you dont' fear it? I find your fear of guns irrational.

Because they are nowhere near as common these days.  When thinking of a weapon, the thing which primarily comes to a person's mind is a gun.  Not a sword or spear.  And incidentally, swords are outlawed in Australia in public areas.  Any kind of weapon is.  Whether it be swords, knife etc.  Unless of course you are just bought it and are transporting it.

I didnt say anything about people having to be former military to be dangerous. I didnt say this because it just isnt true. There are civilians who are better at using guns than some people in the military. And civilians can get guns.

Whose side are you on Archon?  What you are saying is that civilians can get guns at any time, and are more dangerous than some military people.  Need I point this out any further?

In the Urban area I live in I still know a half dozen people who augment their food supply with hunted deer. In less Urban areas I know at least 50 people who hunt regularly for food purposes. Should they not be allowed to own guns.  It seems a little presumptuous of someone in a foreign country to suggest that they know whats right for everyone else.

I was never saying that no one should be allowed guns.  Notice that the operative words are "Gun Control" not "Gun Ban".  If you can prove that you need a gun - fine, you can get one if you carry through the other stuff (getting a liscence etc.) which I put earlier, you might want to have a read up further.  You obviously misunderstood.  I'm objecting to everyone being able to get a gun.

What I'm saying is that assuming an armed public makes us "closer to war" is a false assumption. The US has an armed public. We are not currently anywhere near a violent revolution. Again, I find your fears irrational.

War doesn't nessercarily mean violent revolution.

The argument is that the public should be allowed to arm themselves IN CASE the government becomes oppressive.The argument is that the public should be allowed to arm themselves IN CASE the government becomes oppressive.

See, I find that an irrational fear.  Yes, its possible.  I'm not denying its not.  Its also possible that godzilla is going to grow from my little toe.  But I don't worry myself over that.

Ok, there's some evidence that it reduces violence. Just like there's evidence that it has nothing to do with the violence level. That the evidence is not conclusive is definitely true.  

 

True.  Then again, the evidence is not conclusive that guns don't have anything to do with violence levels etc.

your fear of people on the street is primarily paranoia.

Thats the point.  I'm not afraid of people on the street.  Because they don't have guns.  If they did have guns, I would be a lot more uneasy.  But speaking of paranoia, who is the one who is furiously wanting guns to defend against a possible oppressive government?

Anyway.  Our flag is cooler than yours.  Much more aesthetically beautiful.  So we rule.

[Archon]

Whose side are you on Archon?  What you are saying is that civilians can get guns at any time, and are more dangerous than some military people.  Need I point this out any further?

Yes. Because I say that, gun control or no, people can get guns. And people can use guns effectively. In the U.S. it is still legal to go to the range and shoot a gun. It is recreational. I go sometimes to shoot trap, and it is a good time. I know that people can be dangerous, and gun control is not going to make them any less dangerous. You are trying to work around it, but the simple fact is that you cant tell me that dangerous people cant get guns when they are controlled. Therefore it is pointless to control them, and is anti productive.

True.  Then again, the evidence is not conclusive that guns don't have anything to do with violence levels etc.

So you are saying that we should restrict the right of the whole population, cause a whole lot of inconvenience for those that choose to not go around the restrictions, spend lots of money on (ineffective) enforcement, and (for the U.S.) openly defy the Constitution all on a maybe?

See, I find that an irrational fear.  Yes, its possible.  I'm not denying its not.  Its also possible that godzilla is going to grow from my little toe.  But I don't worry myself over that.

How many times has godzilla grown from someones toe? Ok now how many oppressive governments have there been? Point made.

War doesn't nessercarily mean violent revolution.

You are right on the revolution part, we could be fighting someone else. But war does mean violence, and I would think that that would be what you would object to.

If you can prove that you need a gun - fine, you can get one if you carry through the other stuff (getting a liscence etc.) which I put earlier, you might want to have a read up further.

Ummmm.....Communist anyone? By the same token you might as well have to report to the government to drive somewhere. After all, car exhaust is hurting people, promoting lung diseases. We cant have people needlessly hurting other people can we? That would be inhumane. So how about you just ask the government whenever you want to drive somewhere?

And incidentally, swords are outlawed in Australia in public areas.  Any kind of weapon is.  Whether it be swords, knife etc.

Someone should tell your lawmakers that some people, commonly the ones that you should worry about meeting on the street late at night, are better at fighting than others. Weapons are equalizers. Defense is a perfectly legitimate reason to have and use a weapon. I hope you can agree that if you are being attacked you should be allowed to have a weapon to protect yourself.

[Master Xaio]

But war does mean violence

No!? You think?

Yes. Because I say that, gun control or no, people can get guns. And people can use guns effectively. In the U.S. it is still legal to go to the range and shoot a gun. It is recreational. I go sometimes to shoot trap, and it is a good time. I know that people can be dangerous, and gun control is not going to make them any less dangerous. You are trying to work around it, but the simple fact is that you cant tell me that dangerous people cant get guns when they are controlled. Therefore it is pointless to control them, and is anti productive.

How is it you can all miss the point so effectively?  Gun control does not totally eliminate gun violence.  What it **does** do is eliminate the majority of people with guns, and the potential for more dangerous people with guns.  I'm not denying the fact that terrorists etc. can still get guns despite gun control.  I've never said that.  However, its not pointless, and that is what you can't see.

So you are saying that we should restrict the right of the whole population, cause a whole lot of inconvenience for those that choose to not go around the restrictions, spend lots of money on (ineffective) enforcement, and (for the U.S.) openly defy the Constitution all on a maybe?

Dude, do me a huge favour and scroll up to see what I've said about this point you are commenting on.  Several times.

Ummmm.....Communist anyone? By the same token you might as well have to report to the government to drive somewhere. After all, car exhaust is hurting people, promoting lung diseases. We cant have people needlessly hurting other people can we? That would be inhumane. So how about you just ask the government whenever you want to drive somewhere?

Ok, I can deal with bringing in archaic weaponry.  Cars -- in case you hadn't noticed, we are talking about guns.  Weapons.  And gun control.  Not cars.  And let me just point something out -- you keep on trying to say how gun control doesn't work.  Let me give you a very good example of somewhere it does work: Australia.  So please, don't keep on trying to make out it would inhibit you.  It doesn't.

How many times has godzilla grown from someones toe? Ok now how many oppressive governments have there been? Point made.

See, there was that time last summer... oh, anyway.  Just one question: Do you truly believe that the US is an oppressive government, or anywhere near it? Yes, there are oppressive governments in the world.  Congrats for noticing, as you seem to have trouble noticing other points.  Now, though america seems to be a lot less free than Aus, despite all the propoganda, I somehow doubt its anywhere near being oppressive.

Someone should tell your lawmakers that some people, commonly the ones that you should worry about meeting on the street late at night, are better at fighting than others. Weapons are equalizers. Defense is a perfectly legitimate reason to have and use a weapon. I hope you can agree that if you are being attacked you should be allowed to have a weapon to protect yourself.

There is a **huge** difference between Australia and America in terms of culture.  In america, you may have well trained gangsters etc. skilled in fighting roaming the streets.  We don't.  In America, driveby shootings are common.  Not here.  An american friend of mine summed it up very neatly the other day.  "In Australia, you have all these signs saying 'Please, don't drive for too long, rest.'  In America - its just 'Dont kill each other too much'."  So remember the huge difference in cultures.

All I have time for, try to finish off later.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Ok Im tired of the same arguments thrown back and forth... so I'll throw another one in the mix...

For one thing outcast stop pulling stuff out of your rear end...  saying stuff like this only makes you sound stupid.

I was never saying that no one should be allowed guns.  Notice that the operative words are "Gun Control" not "Gun Ban".  If you can prove that you need a gun - fine, you can get one if you carry through the other stuff (getting a liscence etc.) which I put earlier, you might want to have a read up further.  You obviously misunderstood.  I'm objecting to everyone being able to get a gun.

You havent been clear about what you want at all, especially when you interchange the terms gun control and illegal. So its natural to assume that you mean all guns should be illegal all the time. Especially since you have said guns have only one purpose (to kill people) and that they arent a useful tool.
But I guess you can pretend you didnt say either thing just so you can feel your winning the argument.

Please, don't drive for too long, rest.'  In America - its just 'Dont kill each other too much'.

America was the first country to mandate safe driving times for truckers, and to provide stops at good intervals you cant o down the interstate for 60 miles in most places without seeing a blue rest stop sign with a washroom, picnic areas and in many cases restaurants. In areas without rest stops you might see a sign saying last rest stop for x amount of miles, please drive carefully.

Dont assume that you know what our country is like because you watch the Sopranos, the last time I ran into an armed gang was in San Juan and that was because I didnt understand the culture and where I was. For the most part there arent "armed gangs roaming around the street, and violence itself is very uncommon.

You talk about America like everyone has had a gun pulled on them, and like everyone had a school shooting. Its just not true.
I've lived 28 years and never, ever, ever had a gun pulled on me for a crime. EVER. But I have had knives pulled on me on two occasions. Both times were terrifying and only one of the times did I try and fight back, (when I had my own knife and was cornered) I have been around guns in hundreds of positive ways, and eaten venison jerky, and bear steaks, and had moose stew. The most dangerous thing in my life was my wife's drinking problem
which was horrible, like watching a slow poisoning.

Australia has a higher incidence of alcoholism and alcohol related injuries and deaths than the US. It is not a substance necessary to live and puts a huge burden on the tax base and health care system. So Outcast why don't you believe alcohol should be made illegal.

Its obviously in the publics good, after all more people are killed around the world by drunk drivers than by random gun violence. That doesn't even throw into the mix alcoholism, health concerns, liver damage, random violence and weight problems.

Or how about cars... use of private cars destroys the environment pollutes the air, changes weather patterns and increases the chance of injury or death. shouldn't cars be illegal since more people are killed by cars than gun violence...

These are valid extensions of the gun "control" argument.

[House of Mustard]

Excellent post, Jeffe.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Which is interesting because I believe in some gun controls,...
(i.e. no one needs an ak47 to shoot a deer) and would never own a gun myself, although I have used one for work, and like shooting for sport.

[Spriggan]

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comics/comics4.php?date=20040918

[JP Dogberry]

Why does everyone use this fallcy to prove there argument:

X is like Y in some respects, so X is like Y in all respects.

Guns are neither cars nor alcohol. The fact that they share some similarities does not prove a case against other things, because there are other, extenuating circumstances. We're not talking about cars or alcohol, we're talking about guns.

There are some good reasons to get guns: You live on a farm and may need to shoot an animal to put it down, you want to do it for sport, you want to hunt animals (Although that's moot in Australia, I suppose you could hunt kangaroo, but everything else is basically endangered).

Carrying on the street to defend yourself is not a good reason. If no one on the street has guns you don't need a gun to defend yourself. Don't say knives, knives are banned on the street too, and although someone can easily break that law, allowing them the ability to break the law with guns instead won't make the problem better, it will make the problem worse.

I'm still undecided on the idea of dictator takeover, given that the Liberals just gained control of the senate, giving them control of both houses. But strangely enough, I don't think a gun will be the best way to fix that problem.

Also, I don't care if everyone has a gun. If the millitary take over, I put odds on the guys with tanks.

In any case, I'm still moving to Europe.

[Archon]

JP, if nobody has anything to fight with, then the weak and uncoordinated would not be able to defend themselves. There isnt always going to be a cop around to help out, so if you are faced with a gang, or a big guy, you are pretty much defenseless. Agreed?

Outkast, you quoted me out of context about the war and violence. You are twisting my words.

[JP Dogberry]

Hey, it's your choice to wander the streets at night in a dangerous area where they're aren't any cops. Me, I'll take my chances using common sense in a country without weapons. Besides, beating someone up with your hands isn't going to result in death unless you get an unlucky strike, or the attacker is rather determined. Generally, if someone is after you at night, i figure they're after money, so they'd just pound you into submission rather than take the extra time to make sure you're dead.

[Archon]

Still, you might get yourself stuck in a situation where you have to be in a bad part of town at night, a flat tire for example. They are less likely to kill you, but remember, they, being criminals, are less likely to be without weapons.