Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

[CFLarsen]

Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

If you kill with a gun:

You can do it from a distance.
You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is.
You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself: You can get caught, wounded, killed yourself.
You can surprise the victim.
You can kill in secrecy.
You can kill in anonymity.
You can kill someone far stronger than you.
You can kill, even though there are other people around the victim.
You can kill with far more efficiency than with a knife.
Your victims are far less likely to survive and testify against you.
You can kill more than one person very quickly.
You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help the victim.

If you kill with a knife:

You can't do it from a distance, unless you are a skilled knife-thrower.
You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime.
You have to be close, thereby endangering yourself: You can get caught, wounded, killed yourself.
Your chance of surprising the victim is much smaller.
Your chance of killing in secrecy is much smaller.
Your chance of killing anonymously is much smaller.
Your chance of killing someone stronger than you is much smaller.
You may be able to kill someone in a crowd, but then you run a risk of being overpowered.
You can't kill as efficiently with a knife.
Your victims will have a far greater chance of surviving and testifying against you.
You can kill more than one person, but much slower.
You can't frighten away people who are far from you, who want to help the victim.

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%.
Source: FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html)

About half of all American homes have at least one gun. But knives are found in every kitchen.

Guns are far more dangerous than knives. Deal with it.

[Diamond]

What about rolling pins?:p

[Grammatron]

While I think guns are on average more "danerous" than knives your post is not correct. I'm too tired to take apart your post right now and I'm sure by morning someone will already do it, however you have few assumption that are just plane wrong and your use of statistics is a dishonest.

The biggest example of how wrong you are is of course "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime." How exactly me stabbing someone in...let's say a heart leaves my DNA at the scene? Do knifes have no handles where you are from?

[Ranb]

Here is my spin;


If you defend yourself with a gun:

You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself when a much stronger person attacks you.

You can defend yourself from someone far stronger than you.

You can defend yourself, even though there are other people around to help your attacker kill you.

Your attackers are far less likely to survive and attack you later you.

You can kill more than one attacker very quickly.

You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help your attacker kill you.

Ranb

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The biggest example of how wrong you are is of course "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime." How exactly me stabbing someone in...let's say a heart leaves my DNA at the scene? Do knifes have no handles where you are from?

It is virtually impossible not to leave DNA anywhere. You walk through a room, a hair falls off. You scrape against something, and you leave skin cells. You spit out saliva each time you speak.

In a knife-stabbing scene, up close and personal, leaving no DNA? Gee, sounds like in the movies. The ghost ones.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ranb
Here is my spin;


If you defend yourself with a gun:

You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself when a much stronger person attacks you.

You can defend yourself from someone far stronger than you.

You can defend yourself, even though there are other people around to help your attacker kill you.

Your attackers are far less likely to survive and attack you later you.

You can kill more than one attacker very quickly.

You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help your attacker kill you.

Ranb

The 'muggings go down just like in the movies' school of handgun defence.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is virtually impossible not to leave DNA anywhere. You walk through a room, a hair falls off. You scrape against something, and you leave skin cells. You spit out saliva each time you speak.

In a knife-stabbing scene, up close and personal, leaving no DNA? Gee, sounds like in the movies. The ghost ones.

I think you watch too much CSI or whatever the equivelent show is in your country.

It would be impossible to collect DNA unless the murder was commited in a clean lab room.

Furthermore, vast majority of those murder statistics from guns you cited were not conducted by snipers 100s of feet away but in the same room or with in a close proximity.

So you would leave your DNA at the scene. So either your point about guns is wrong "You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is" or your point about knives is wrong "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime."

Chose one, either way you are wrong.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ranb
Here is my spin;

That would be justifiable homicide. Check the same page, table 2.17: 1% are justifiable homicides.

Your right to defend yourself comes at a very high price: A pile of dead bodies.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Ranb
Here is my spin;



Sorry that is another subject.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I think you watch too much CSI or whatever the equivelent show is in your country.

I think I saw the show a couple of times while I was living in the US. I prefer Quincy.

Originally posted by Grammatron
It would be impossible to collect DNA unless the murder was commited in a clean lab room.

Not at all:

DNA breakthrough in Lindh killer hunt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3110462.stm)

Killer trapped by DNA loses appeal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3980661.stm)

Forensic tests reveal killer's ID (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3662665.stm)

Nurse killer's DNA profiled (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3119284.stm)

Life for Lynette White murder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3044282.stm)

You want more real-life examples of how killers with knives leave DNA? I got plenty.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Furthermore, vast majority of those murder statistics from guns you cited were not conducted by snipers 100s of feet away but in the same room or with in a close proximity.

Doesn't change the fact that you can kill from a distance.

Lee Harvey Oswald. Charles Whitman. Mark Essex. Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad.

Originally posted by Grammatron
So you would leave your DNA at the scene. So either your point about guns is wrong "You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is" or your point about knives is wrong "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime."

Chose one, either way you are wrong.

Not at all. You don't leave DNA if you are far away from the dead person, if you shoot from a distance. But you do, if you stab him up close.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%. [/B]

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

[Ranb]

Have to include nuclear weapons then too. I believe the death toll is less than 200,000 in Japan for nukes, including their own processing plants. Sorry, I could not resist.

Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not at all:

DNA breakthrough in Lindh killer hunt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3110462.stm)

Killer trapped by DNA loses appeal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3980661.stm)

Forensic tests reveal killer's ID (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3662665.stm)

Nurse killer's DNA profiled (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3119284.stm)

Life for Lynette White murder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3044282.stm)

You want more real-life examples of how killers with knives leave DNA? I got plenty.


Is it true for all the cases or not, because your claim makes it sound like person with a gun will no leave DNA evidence, which is false or a person with a knife will leave DNA evidence no matter what, which is also false.

I have plenty of anecdotal evidence too.




Doesn't change the fact that you can kill from a distance.

Lee Harvey Oswald. Charles Whitman. Mark Essex. Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad.

You can kill with a knife as well, from a distance. Gun just makes it easier.

Remember, I am not arguing that knives are as dangerous as guns, just that some of your points are ridiculas and some are wrong.


Not at all. You don't leave DNA if you are far away from the dead person, if you shoot from a distance. But you do, if you stab him up close.

Well if DNA collection is as easy as you claim it is than you most certainly will leave DNA in the location of where you are shooting from. And that location can be pin-pointed far easier that it would be to collect DNA.

[Ranb]

Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

Have to include nuclear weapons then too. I believe the death toll is less than 200,000 in Japan for nukes, including their own processing plants. Sorry, I could not resist.

Ranb

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is it true for all the cases or not, because your claim makes it sound like person with a gun will no leave DNA evidence, which is false or a person with a knife will leave DNA evidence no matter what, which is also false.

It is very likely that you will leave DNA. Better?

I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA. Can you?

Originally posted by Grammatron
You can kill with a knife as well, from a distance. Gun just makes it easier.

If you want to kill with a knife from a distance, you have to throw it with enough force, you have to rotate the knife so it hits with the blade first (pretty darn difficult!), and you have to hit areas of the body that are soft enough.

I'd like to see you penetrate a skull with a knife at a distance.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well if DNA collection is as easy as you claim it is than you most certainly will leave DNA in the location of where you are shooting from. And that location can be pin-pointed far easier that it would be to collect DNA.

If you are shooting from a place that can be investigated for DNA, yes. Malvo and Muhammad, car.

However, since you are not in a scuffle, all things being equal, you should be able to cover your tracks much better.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Ranb

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

Have to include nuclear weapons then too. I believe the death toll is less than 200,000 in Japan for nukes, including their own processing plants. Sorry, I could not resist.


It depends on where Claus is going with this, but I suspect that this will turn out to be irrelevant.

My guess is that Claus is addressing the good old "if you banned guns, people would just kill each other with knives" justification for gun ownership. If that is the case, you remarks are not relevant.

Claus is on very solid ground this time. Guns are more dangerous than knives, both for premeditated killing and for impulsive killing.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is very likely that you will leave DNA. Better?

It's better that you can alter your point based on logic, but I think neither is more likely to leave DNA. In fact a gun is worse since it will leave gun powder residue. I just think you should drop that point all together since it does nothing to help your over all point.


I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA. Can you?

No. Collecting it is another matter all together, though.


If you want to kill with a knife from a distance, you have to throw it with enough force, you have to rotate the knife so it hits with the blade first (pretty darn difficult!), and you have to hit areas of the body that are soft enough.

I'd like to see you penetrate a skull with a knife at a distance.

Why when your kneck is a far better target? That is if I am skilled enough with a knife to properly throw it to begin with.


If you are shooting from a place that can be investigated for DNA, yes. Malvo and Muhammad, car.

However, since you are not in a scuffle, all things being equal, you should be able to cover your tracks much better.

Well you just said above that, and I quote "I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA." So...which is it?

[Zep]

Fish knife or butter knife? I always get those two mixed up... Anyway, it's a LOT safer to spread butter on bread or eat salmon with either of those than with a .357 Magnum.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
It's better that you can alter your point based on logic, but I think neither is more likely to leave DNA. In fact a gun is worse since it will leave gun powder residue. I just think you should drop that point all together since it does nothing to help your over all point.

I disagree.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Why when your kneck is a far better target? That is if I am skilled enough with a knife to properly throw it to begin with.

My point exactly. You need a loooong time practicing with a knife to do that. With a gun, fire away. Repeatedly.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well you just said above that, and I quote "I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA." So...which is it?

A missing "not". I can't really see how one can protect oneself from not leaving DNA. That'll teach me to use convoluted sentences...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It depends on where Claus is going with this, but I suspect that this will turn out to be irrelevant.

My guess is that Claus is addressing the good old "if you banned guns, people would just kill each other with knives" justification for gun ownership. If that is the case, you remarks are not relevant.

Claus is on very solid ground this time. Guns are more dangerous than knives, both for premeditated killing and for impulsive killing.

More dangreous, yes but how much more? One also has to consider related crime statistics such as burglary which tends to go down in areas with high gun ownership. And of course most criminals do not use legally purchased weapons.

It is a complex question question and a problem, but I don't see how a silly thread like this moves the debate forward.

Slightly off topic, didn't Australia pass some resolutions banning certain types of blades recently?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Zep
Fish knife or butter knife? I always get those two mixed up...

I'm surprised they have both in Aussie-Land...don't you just use Crocodile Dundee knives? ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

With a gun, even a cripple in a wheelchair can defeat an attacker.

God made Man. Colonel Colt made them equal.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/equalizer.htm

http://www.colt.com/CMCI/images/SAA_P1650.jpg

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I disagree.

Well...that's life I guess.

My point exactly. You need a loooong time practicing with a knife to do that. With a gun, fire away. Repeatedly.

I don't know if you ever fired a gun and if you did if you fired it at an object which is some distance from but it's not that easy. Certainly easier than knife throwing, but not so easy as to be just "fire away."


A missing "not". I can't really see how one can protect oneself from not leaving DNA. That'll teach me to use convoluted sentences...

My point is, if you leave DNA no matter what you do then distance has no meaning since they will find it once they trace the bullet trajectory.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Slightly off topic, didn't Australia pass some resolutions banning certain types of blades recently? In this state (NSW), banned selling knives to under 16's.

http://www.deweyknives.com.au/klaws.html

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred



With a gun, even a cripple in a wheelchair can defeat an attacker.

God made Man. Colonel Colt made them equal.

Gee, that would mean the attacker would have to stay standing perfectly still right in front of the wheelchair, while their intended victim slowly took the gun out of their pocket with their crippled hands and aimed it accurately at the attacker for long enough to pull the trigger with their withered fingers.

Ayup. :rolleyes:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You can do it from a distance.
Even if it would be harder to throw a knife from a distance,it can still be done.

You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is.
How do you leave dna from stabbing someone with a knife?
I think this goes hand in hand with the very first reason,Because at a distance there's less likely hood that you will get caught from dna at the scene.

You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself: You can get caught, wounded, killed yourself.
This is the same as the first one.....Doing it from a distance means not doing it close.

You can surprise the victim.
You can surprise them with a knife.

You can kill in secrecy.
You can kill in secrecy with a knife or sword,Look at the Ninja's.
But this is the same as surprising them basically...

You can kill in anonymity.
This is the same as suprising them or killing them in secrecy....Both of which can be done with knives.

You can kill someone far stronger than you.
Can be done with knife.(Even if it's harder.)

You can kill, even though there are other people around the victim.
Can be done with knife.(Even if it's harder.)

You can kill with far more efficiency than with a knife.
Ok.

Your victims are far less likely to survive and testify against you.
ok.


You can kill more than one person very quickly.
That would depend on the gun,Your skill level with the gun.Someone with a knife and alot of skill can kill more people in a span of a few seconds than someone with a gun without the skill can.

You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help the victim.
I don't understand this one...
[/LIST]


If you kill with a knife:
[LIST]
You can't do it from a distance, unless you are a skilled knife-thrower.
Also take into account the person's shooting ability.

You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime.
Not always.

You have to be close, thereby endangering yourself: You can get caught, wounded, killed yourself.
ok...

Your chance of surprising the victim is much smaller.
But still there.

Your chance of killing in secrecy is much smaller.
Still there.

Your chance of killing anonymously is much smaller.
Still there...and is the same as the past 2.

Your chance of killing someone stronger than you is much smaller.
But still there.

You may be able to kill someone in a crowd, but then you run a risk of being overpowered.
Same goes with a gun...Unless you have a sniper rifel.Which takes about as much skill as throwing a knife does.

You can't kill as efficiently with a knife.
Depending in skill level.

Your victims will have a far greater chance of surviving and testifying against you.
Depending on skill level with knife and aim with gun.

You can kill more than one person, but much slower.
Still depends on skill level.

You can't frighten away people who are far from you, who want to help the victim.
This can also be done with a knife.





Now...Im not disagreeing with you about knives being less dangerous than guns,Im just pointing out the problems with this list.It could be alot shorter...Most of the points are the same as the first point,Distance.And the same as the point of being able to sneak up onto someone....anonymity,Secrecy,Suprise...All are basically the same thing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I don't know if you ever fired a gun and if you did if you fired it at an object which is some distance from but it's not that easy. Certainly easier than knife throwing, but not so easy as to be just "fire away."

The point is, you can make up for poor marksmanship by firing repeatedly. You want to stand in front of someone firing a gun repeatedly, even someone who merely pulls the trigger? I don't.

Originally posted by Grammatron
My point is, if you leave DNA no matter what you do then distance has no meaning since they will find it once they trace the bullet trajectory.

My point is, that you have more time and opportunity to clean up after yourself, if you are far away, and nobody knows where you are - yet.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

My point is, that you have more time and opportunity to clean up after yourself, if you are far away, and nobody knows where you are - yet.

But you said there's no way you can not leave DNA at the scene, so now there is a way to remove it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Even if it would be harder to throw a knife from a distance,it can still be done.

Probabilities. You want to throw a knife 50 yards? Think you can shoot a bullet 50 yards?

Originally posted by DustinKLP
How do you leave dna from stabbing someone with a knife?

Check the links I provided.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
You can surprise them with a knife.

Sneaking up on someone is not as easy as you might think.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
You can kill in secrecy with a knife or sword,Look at the Ninja's.

Yes, if you are highly skilled, through many years. There are not that many Ninja's around...

Originally posted by DustinKLP
This is the same as suprising them or killing them in secrecy....Both of which can be done with knives.

Addressed.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Can be done with knife.(Even if it's harder.)

Again, harder.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Can be done with knife.(Even if it's harder.)

Again, harder.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
That would depend on the gun,Your skill level with the gun.Someone with a knife and alot of skill can kill more people in a span of a few seconds than someone with a gun without the skill can.

Again, skills are needed. You don't need years of training with an Uzi.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
I don't understand this one...

Pointing the gun at them. Very scary.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Also take into account the person's shooting ability.

Again, skills.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Not always.

Perhaps. But if we look at previous cases where DNA has shown who the murderer is, I personally would not rely on it.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Same goes with a gun...Unless you have a sniper rifel.Which takes about as much skill as throwing a knife does.

No, because you have the element of fear: People have just seen that you are willing to use a gun to kill someone. They would rightly think that you are also willing to kill them. After all, why not? They have seen you, and can testify against you. You bet there's an element of fear.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
This can also be done with a knife.

How so? If you are standing 30 yards from me, wielding a knife, you are far less frigtening than if you had a gun.

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Now...Im not disagreeing with you about knives being less dangerous than guns,Im just pointing out the problems with this list.It could be alot shorter...Most of the points are the same as the first point,Distance.And the same as the point of being able to sneak up onto someone....anonymity,Secrecy,Suprise...All are basically the same thing.

Perhaps. I am merely trying to get as many points through as possible.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Perhaps. I am merely trying to get as many points through as possible. [/B]


Distance...Buda-Boom!,Case proven.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
But you said there's no way you can not leave DNA at the scene, so now there is a way to remove it?

If you find the hair you lost, it is removed.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron
More dangreous, yes but how much more? One also has to consider related crime statistics such as burglary which tends to go down in areas with high gun ownership.

Says who? (http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/03_06_25_do.cfm)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Oh...and Btw,it's very easy to sneak up onto someone on a crowded street.Whip out a knive you had in your pocked or jacket..Stab then..Quickly put the knive away and then keep on walking.
In a crowd of alot of people in a busy street or sidewalk,No one will be able to see you doing it if you are careful...Just stab them quickly,put the knive back...and in a fraction of a second you're just another gun in the crowd.In some cases you don't even need to pull the knive out all of the way...Just enough to jab them and keep on walking,not even stopping to stab.
You won't expect someone to stab you in a crowded street.

But with a gun,Once you do it...everyone knows you have a gun and everyone will try to tackle your or start running in a frenzy.Unless there's a silencer...In which case it still makes a small noise,and you still need to pull it out completly to actually hit someone at a distance of a foot or so.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Oh...and Btw,it's very easy to sneak up onto someone on a crowded street.Whip out a knive you had in your pocked or jacket..Stab then..Quickly put the knive away and then keep on walking.
In a crowd of alot of people in a busy street or sidewalk,No one will be able to see you doing it if you are careful...Just stab them quickly,put the knive back...and in a fraction of a second you're just another gun in the crowd.In some cases you don't even need to pull the knive out all of the way...Just enough to jab them and keep on walking,not even stopping to stab.
You won't expect someone to stab you in a crowded street.

But with a gun,Once you do it...everyone knows you have a gun and everyone will try to tackle your or start running in a frenzy.Unless there's a silencer...In which case it still makes a small noise,and you still need to pull it out completly to actually hit someone at a distance of a foot or so.

Try telling that to the five other people who were shot at Dimebag's concert. I'll be particularly interested to hear the responses from the three who died.

After you've finished with the rhetoric, care to provide some semblance of evidence?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Try telling that to the five other people who were shot at Dimebag's concert. I'll be particularly interested to hear the responses from the three who died.

After you've finished with the rhetoric, care to provide some semblance of evidence?


I don't know much about the concert incident...But if he fired a gun,then in all likely hood people were running and screaming...Unless the music were too loud to hear the gun shots.
It's very easy to shoot into a crowd and hit random people.

And we all know the shooter got gunned down by police anyway.

Secondly this has nothing to do with an open street.

also this would of been MUCH easier to just stab someone in a concert rather than shoot a gun.
Obviously this does not apply for anyone onstage,because if you went up and stabbed them...Then you're done for.


I doubt there are any studies done on how effective it is to sneak up onto someone and stab them with a knife,compared to using a gun in a crowd of people...and finding out which one gets away easier.:D



And if the point of this thread is guns need to be banned or crap like that...Then you all need to rethink your logic.

[plindboe]

Good points Claus. Or rather obvious points really. I find it silly that people try to argue against them.

Imagine a war being fought where one side had firearms and the other only armed with knifes. I bet the side with firearms would have an easy win. It would be a massacre.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DustinKLP
I don't know much about the concert incident...But if he fired a gun,then in all likely hood people were running and screaming...Unless the music were too loud to hear the gun shots.
Though I am greatly in favor of reducing the number of guns, particularly handguns, in US society, this post brings up one point that seems to have been overlooked in the knife-gun debate.

Knives don't make a sound. Shooting a gun alerts others that something is going down. So for certain types of crimes, knives are preferable.

That being said, I believe statistics show that the vast majority of murders in the US are "crimes of passion", so the silence factor is really only important for the more rare murderous stealth criminals.

On the other side, there is also the "cowardice factor". If you are afraid of your intended victim because he is bigger and stronger than you, then you are unlikely to get close enough to him to allow him the chance to defend against your knife attack, so the gun is a better tool for offense against another. This is a point also made by many gun supporters as to why it is a good tool for defense.

It is true that reducing the number of guns would not eliminate murders, but it would make it more difficult for an angry person (especially drunk angry persons, which seem to be a high percentage of "passion" murderers) to indulge his anger.

Just as a side note, I heard that you cannot get a useful DNA sample from a hair. If it has a bit of the follicle attached, odds are much better, but the keratin of the hair itself contains only fragments of DNA strands. Can someone verify this?

[often mrunderstood]

Is sword more or less dangerous than a BB gun?

Should the knife be the "danger standard" by which all items are deemed to be legal or illegal?

While I fully agree that guns are generally far more dangerous than knifes, I am not sure what the point is. Why would guns have been invented if knives were already the perfect weapon?

Claus, I grew up in a household with many guns. Shot thousands (if not tens of thousands) of rounds in my life. I currently own zero guns with no intention of aquiring one anytime soon. I just don't feel threatened in my current situation. If I lived somewhere different (dangerous, high crime area) or far from the public, I am glad I have the option to legally aquire a firearm.

My main argument against making firearms illegal to own, is the same as all other illegal "desirables". It is my opinion that the illegal markets created through prohibition are more detrimental to our society than having controlled legal methods of ownership.

And with technology where it is today, an individual could easily make a gun shop with a relatively small investment.

Not to mention, where do we draw the line with self protection? If guns were illegal what do you think people would get? Tazer? Pepper Spray? Knives? Swords? Bows?

Just like nukes, you can't uninvent something. I have the same position on drugs. Controlled legalization is better than the blackmarket prohibition creates. Drugs can't even be kept out of PRISONS. Making guns illegal would reduce guns deaths in a way simlar to the reduction in alcoholics if prohibition were reinstated. It would have an impact. I am just not sure it would be big enough to overcome the problems it creates.

I am a huge fan of a less violent society. As long as there are a large number of people who are not, self protection will always be needed.

My .02
Sean

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by often mrunderstood
Is sword more or less dangerous than a BB gun?

Should the knife be the "danger standard" by which all items are deemed to be legal or illegal?

While I fully agree that guns are generally far more dangerous than knifes, I am not sure what the point is. Why would guns have been invented if knives were already the perfect weapon?

Claus, I grew up in a household with many guns. Shot thousands (if not tens of thousands) of rounds in my life. I currently own zero guns with no intention of aquiring one anytime soon. I just don't feel threatened in my current situation. If I lived somewhere different (dangerous, high crime area) or far from the public, I am glad I have the option to legally aquire a firearm.

My main argument against making firearms illegal to own, is the same as all other illegal "desirables". It is my opinion that the illegal markets created through prohibition are more detrimental to our society than having controlled legal methods of ownership.

And with technology where it is today, an individual could easily make a gun shop with a relatively small investment.

Not to mention, where do we draw the line with self protection? If guns were illegal what do you think people would get? Tazer? Pepper Spray? Knives? Swords? Bows?

Just like nukes, you can't uninvent something. I have the same position on drugs. Controlled legalization is better than the blackmarket prohibition creates. Drugs can't even be kept out of PRISONS. Making guns illegal would reduce guns deaths in a way simlar to the reduction in alcoholics if prohibition were reinstated. It would have an impact. I am just not sure it would be big enough to overcome the problems it creates.

I am a huge fan of a less violent society. As long as there are a large number of people who are not, self protection will always be needed.

My .02
Sean


I agree with you 100%....There are many more reasons that drugs should be legal than there are that they should stay illegal.Including anabolic steroids,Bodybuilders who intend to take this drug to improve their muscular physique have harder times because they are not legal.I myself am a bodybuilder and I have talked to literally dozens of pro-bodybuilders(the highest level of bodybuilding where if you don't take steroids you won't become a pro)...ALL of them have said that steroids don't cause people to snap and act violently...They basically all said the same thing.."If you're an @$$hole without steroids,you won't be one with steroids..and vise versa." These guys who have been taking steroids for 10+ years usually know all there is to know about them,and have not had any experiences where their anger got the best of them because of steroids.Other emotions yes...Anger,no. And these guys who are in their 40's and 50's and are completly healthy who have been taking steroids for 20 years.Including the govenor of california.Im not denying that steroids are dangerous...Im just saying they are nowhere near as dangerous as the FDA and other organizations would like you to think.This includes Marajuana...There have been NO deaths from marajuana recorded.
Compare that to normal cigarret's...And they are still LEGAL.
The only reason Steroids and other drugs are illegal is because of ignorance of the drugs,and outside powers who's best interest it would be if they were illegal.

[hammegk]

Claus often seems like the kind of guy who would bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk
Claus often seems like the kind of guy who would bring a knife to a gunfight.

This has been another non-contributing post-and-run brought to you by hammegk: JREF's Least Productive Poster.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
Gee, that would mean the attacker would have to stay standing perfectly still right in front of the wheelchair, while their intended victim slowly took the gun out of their pocket with their crippled hands and aimed it accurately at the attacker for long enough to pull the trigger with their withered fingers.

Ayup. :rolleyes:

Nonsense.

An otherwise able bodied paraplegic would do just fine.

You can always construct a scenario where the victim has no chance. But the victim has a better chance when armed.

By the way, did you click the link and read the article?

[Beanbag]

Thought I might chime in here. ANY place a person goes through will have some physical trace of that person. Think hair, dandruff, spit (if you sneeze or lick something), maybe an eyelash. The problem is that ALL visitors leave something. You're in a cloud of genetic material left by any and all persons and non-humans that have been where you're at for the past ten or so years. The idea that someone will go in and vacuum the carpet and magically detect the specific DNA for a single person is fairrly hogwash. You have to get lucky, like finding hair or a blood droplet, something specific to that person that concentrates and isolates the genetic material. The idea that you're going to find a useable sample from a guitar string that has been played by a large group of individuals over the years is assinine. Possible, yes; likely, no. The procedures used to "amplify" a small DNA sample are non-speciific -- they duplicate EVERY piece of DNA in the sample, including your cat's, that fly that vomited on the sample, and whatever contamination you collected with the sample. That's why how a sample is collected can make or break the validity of the evidence. It also requires a damned skilled tech to process the sample under tightly controlled conditions. I don't care for how simple shows like CSI make it appear that all you have to do is swab a surface.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Cleon]

*groan* Yay, another gun thread. And with Claus launching this one, how long do you suppose it'll be before it turns into a pissing match between Claus and Shanek? :nope:

In any event, I can't say I've ever heard someone say "knives are as dangerous as guns." You really don't hear of "drive-by knifings" all that much.

I would argue that cars are more dangerous than knives or guns; they kill more people each year, they're used by more people, and while you can get completely blitzed and use a steak knife, the moment someone bombed out of his skull drives a Buick they become an instant road hazard to themselves and others.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleon
*groan* Yay, another gun thread. And with Claus launching this one, how long do you suppose it'll be before it turns into a pissing match between Claus and Shanek? :nope:

In any event, I can't say I've ever heard someone say "knives are as dangerous as guns." You really don't hear of "drive-by knifings" all that much.

I would argue that cars are more dangerous than knives or guns; they kill more people each year, they're used by more people, and while you can get completely blitzed and use a steak knife, the moment someone bombed out of his skull drives a Buick they become an instant road hazard to themselves and others.

The topic is about weapons used for homocide. You'll find in that case that cars are comparitively harmless.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Cleon
*groan* Yay, another gun thread. And with Claus launching this one, how long do you suppose it'll be before it turns into a pissing match between Claus and Shanek? :nope:

In any event, I can't say I've ever heard someone say "knives are as dangerous as guns." You really don't hear of "drive-by knifings" all that much.

I would argue that cars are more dangerous than knives or guns; they kill more people each year, they're used by more people, and while you can get completely blitzed and use a steak knife, the moment someone bombed out of his skull drives a Buick they become an instant road hazard to themselves and others.


Yea...Let's make it harder to get car's just like these people want to make it harder to buy firearms.:rolleyes: Let's make all kinds of new law's where it prevents older people,college students,Teenagers,Alchoholics and everyone else with problems from getting cars.

Oh,Oh...How about let's make it illegal to sell cigarret's...Tobacco companies kill more people a year than any gun would kill people.
Seems like a dandy idea to me!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DustinKLP
Yea...Let's make it harder to get car's just like these people want to make it harder to buy firearms.:rolleyes: Let's make all kinds of new law's where it prevents older people,college students,Teenagers,Alchoholics and everyone else with problems from getting cars.

Oh,Oh...How about let's make it illegal to sell cigarret's...Tobacco companies kill more people a year than any gun would kill people.
Seems like a dandy idea to me!

Another one who isn't paying attention.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Another one who isn't paying attention.

I am paying attention and see nothing but a strawman. The only issue, IMO, is whether a gun is loaded or not.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The topic is about weapons used for homocide. You'll find in that case that cars are comparitively harmless.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 400,000
Alcohol 85,000 / 101,653
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 43,000 / 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0


In the study of Motor Vehicle's the authors decided to count 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes under motor vehicle crashes rather than under alcohol consumption.Either way it's higher than homicide.
And incidents involving firearms are at 29,000...Still lower than car's if you add in drunk drivers using car's.But this includes accidents.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The topic is about weapons used for homocide. You'll find in that case that cars are comparitively harmless.

Erm, you might want to re-think that a bit...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Another one who isn't paying attention.


Im paying attention,I just don't agree with you.

Big difference...




Originally posted by Ed
I am paying attention and see nothing but a strawman. The only issue, IMO, is whether a gun is loaded or not.


This is a good point...Maybe it's the ammo that should be made harder to get and not the firearms.
But either way,People who use the firearms for purposes that don't include killing people or holding up convient stores suffer because of this.I myself want to get into marksmanship and firing firearms,And I don't want to have to go through hell trying to get a gun just because some psychopath prefers to kill people with it rather than go hunting or shoot at a non-living target.

[Mr Manifesto]

Hmm... For some reason no less than three people have missed my point. Perhaps I was too subtle.

Compare the number of people who have died from vehicular homicide, and compare that to the number of people who have died from stabbing and firearm homicide. Tell me which is the greater.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hmm... For some reason no less than three people have missed my point. Perhaps I was too subtle.

Compare the number of people who have died from vehicular homicide, and compare that to the number of people who have died from stabbing and firearm homicide. Tell me which is the greater.


This is not what you said...You said "weapons used for homicide",And if a car is used for homicide it turnes into a weapon.
but it really makes no difference,A car turns into a weapon the second it starts moving. Homicide or no homicide,It's still very dangerous.And it's Still a weapon.More dangerous so than firearms,Even if the majority of death's involving it are accident's,It's still a weapon and it's still dangerous in the wrong hands..I.E. Drunks,Elderly,Teenagers,Angry people..ect..ect.
So with your logic,If making it harder to get guns is ok,Then making it harder to get vehicles is ok also.The Same thing must also apply to every thing that CAN be used as a weapon,Which is just about everything from computers to tobacco to baseball bats to Junk food.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This has been another non-contributing post-and-run brought to you by hammegk: JREF's Least Productive Poster.
Other than you, perhaps. BTW, the topic is *not* about weapons used in 'homocides', is it? Or if it is, iyo, do you trace that to the OP?

I ask you if you know anyone, anywhere, who thinks sharp instruments are more dangerous than firearms, or, that that offers a topic worthy of reasonable debate -- recalling of course the current JREF mission which is approaching "educate the un-educatable".

And, please, have a nice day to the best of your abilities.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hmm... For some reason no less than three people have missed my point. Perhaps I was too subtle.

Compare the number of people who have died from vehicular homicide, and compare that to the number of people who have died from stabbing and firearm homicide. Tell me which is the greater.


How do you account for "The Perfect Crime" using cars? Seems you could knock somebody off pretty easily and say "whoopsie".

I really don't get this discussion (much like the militia one after 5 posts or so). Guns are used in homicides more than knives. So? Big whoop. Tissues are used for blowing one's nose more than wolverines. OK. Now what?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
But the victim has a better chance when armed.

The problem with that point is, that there are far, far more "normal" homicides than justifiable homicides.

The price you pay is incredibly high. Not just for other people, but also for yourself. You do run a substantially higher risk of being shot, if you live in the US, that other places.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk
Other than you, perhaps. BTW, the topic is *not* about weapons used in 'homocides', is it? Or if it is, iyo, do you trace that to the OP?

I ask you if you know anyone, anywhere, who thinks sharp instruments are more dangerous than firearms, or, that that offers a topic worthy of reasonable debate -- recalling of course the current JREF mission which is approaching "educate the un-educatable".

And, please, have a nice day to the best of your abilities.

This has been another non-contributing post-and-run brought to you by hammegk: JREF's Least Productive Poster.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I am paying attention and see nothing but a strawman. The only issue, IMO, is whether a gun is loaded or not.

Really? Then you don't think that an unloaded gun - or simply the threat of saying that you have a gun - has any defensive value?

Yes, I'm thinking Kleck/Lott here.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed
How do you account for "The Perfect Crime" using cars? Seems you could knock somebody off pretty easily and say "whoopsie".

I really don't get this discussion (much like the militia one after 5 posts or so). Guns are used in homicides more than knives. So? Big whoop. Tissues are used for blowing one's nose more than wolverines. OK. Now what?

So, can we now see an end to the argument, used often by the pro-gun lobby, that just as many murders could easily be committed by people with knives than guns?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, can we now see an end to the argument, used often by the pro-gun lobby, that just as many murders could easily be committed by people with knives than guns?

There is clear evidence that guns are far more lethal than knives.

Will this stop the argument from popping up again? Doubtful. But at least we will know who to take seriously in the debate.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There is clear evidence that guns are far more lethal than knives.

Will this stop the argument from popping up again? Doubtful. But at least we will know who to take seriously in the debate.


Im not(and neither is anyone else in this thread) arguing that generally firearms are more deadly than stabbing weapons.(In some case's they are not however.)Firearms are Obviously more deadly in most cases.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, can we now see an end to the argument, used often by the pro-gun lobby, that just as many murders could easily be committed by people with knives than guns?

I would like a specific reference to this contention.

Does one exist?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, can we now see an end to the argument, used often by the pro-gun lobby, that just as many murders could easily be committed by people with knives than guns?

Wow. Who, exactly, has used this argument?

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Really? Then you don't think that an unloaded gun - or simply the threat of saying that you have a gun - has any defensive value?

Yes, I'm thinking Kleck/Lott here.

The Thread titles is "Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns."

My remark was with reference to this.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
Wow. Who, exactly, has used this argument?

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Did you even bother reading the story? Perhaps Denmark is different, but here in America, it's rather difficult to be "far away" from other people at a concert, let alone a nightclub. Why do you insist on these ridiculous claims? In another thread, in which someone used a gun to sexually assault someone, you also brought up this “guns kill from a distance� BS, and called it “irrelevant� that most rapes do not occur “from a distance� (as well as dismissing the point that knives kill from a distance, too). And now you yet again bring this up, when yet again it is clear that long distance weaponry has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. Now, are you really claiming that it absolutely, without a doubt, completely certain that a knife attack would have resulted in fewer deaths?
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870714664#post1870714664)


Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Maybe, he could've used a knife or a baseball bat. If there were laws against having guns, who's to say the kid would not have had one anyway?
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870694919#post1870694919)


Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A knife can and is more deadly within a certain distance (around 5 ft) than a gun. This is because a gun only shoots a straight line from the barrel, where a knife has many different angles of attack. However, that being said, if the kid wanted to, he could've tried to kidnap that same exotic dancer using a knife or a baseball bat. CFL is making the classic mistake of blaming inanimate objects for the actions that the people use them for. Inanimate objects have no sentience, the last time I checked.

Banning guns isn't going to make them all (guns) disappear either. Nor will it deter violent crime.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870695532#post1870695532)


Originally posted by waitew
If there were no guns or knives,baseball bats or ring up exotic dancers,the kid would simply have choosen a more vulnerable victim..likely a child.Banning guns wouldn't have prevented this!!The inanimate object isn't the problem here.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870695643#post1870695643)


Originally posted by shanek
She still ran, so your point is invalidated. There are risks with just running from a knife-wielder, too. They can be thrown, you know.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870695232#post1870695232)


To pick a few...

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The problem with that point is, that there are far, far more "normal" homicides than justifiable homicides.

The price you pay is incredibly high. Not just for other people, but also for yourself. You do run a substantially higher risk of being shot, if you live in the US, that other places.


High or low is irrelevant. The question is whether it is tolerable and whether the opinion of the public is sufficient to change the situation. To some here, the notion of not having onesself as a credible last line of defence is intolerable. The issue has nothing to do with statistics, frankly, though they are bandied about with tiresome regularity.

We pay lots of high prices, drugs, tobacco, alchohol but the population at large is willing to tolerate those prices given the alternatives (whatever they are).

As I pointed out on the other thread, the tendency is to support and extend gun rights.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This has been another non-contributing post-and-run brought to you by Mr Manifesto: JREF's Least Productive Poster.

There. I fixed it for ya. ;)

[Dogwood]

Coming in late as usual, but I wanted to add a little to the DNA evidence issue. In my limited experience, DNA evidence linking a suspect to a crime scene usually involve the victims DNA more often than the attackers with the exception of sexual assualt. Whether one uses a gun (up close) or a knife or a blunt object or what have you, the victims blood is more likely to spatter on the attacker, their clothes, the weapon, than a source for the attackers DNA is to be found on or near the victim. There are exceptions of course and this wouldn't apply to sniper style shootings, but a chain of evidence doesn't stop there.

Bullet markings or wound markers can be tracked to the weapon which will have fingerprints and DNA, barring gloves, etc. Although it's impossible to enter a room without leaving your DNA behind, finding and isolating that DNA in sufficient quantity is another matter altogether.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
To pick a few...

Okay, so a couple people said that, for specific murders, a knife could be just as deadly. And somehow this translates into "just as many murders could easily be committed by people with knives than guns."

My congratulations, however, on knocking this particular strawman down. May its demise be another notch in your belt of argumentative genius.

[WildCat]

Guns are more lethal than knives?! OMG!!! They should be banned immediately before another child dies!!! Won't someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!














That sums up Claus's point, if I'm not mistaken. :rolleyes:

[Ed]

Originally posted by WildCat
Guns are more lethal than knives?!


That sums up Claus's point, if I'm not mistaken. :rolleyes:

No. I think that you oversimplify. The position is the "enlightened european" one. Simply stated it is:

"Look guys, we have outgrown any need for widespread ownership of arms. Look at the data, it causes more harm than benefit. Surely you can follow our mature lead on this one."

It is partronizing and numbingly simplistic and ignores many realities. It also allows for only one solution, theirs.

The idea is that they are so blindingly correct that we only have to look to see the rightness of their position. The militia thread was a good example. I guess Claus thought that over the few decades the anti-gun nuts missed something and that somehow, here, with the massive legal minds that we have at our disposal, we would have an "ah ha" experience and see that, silly americans, the militia is the army so you really have no right to gun ownership. Well........

The issue that escapes most Europeans is that this is not a black and white issue, as they would like it to be. It has nothing to do with stories that pepper the news, nor the lethality of knives or cars. It is social, legal and historical and is not as simple as they would like to believe. All other discussions are strawmen or otherwise irrelevant to the issue.

(another edit) Another fact is that most Europeans are ignorant of our system of government. They don't realize that there are states and that law must meet a constitutuional standard. I know as little of European law as they do of ours but the somehat high handed hunting ban in England would have been laughed out of congress, not because it was wrong, mind, because it would have been shot down on at least 2 different fronts. What right of recourse do the Brits have? I don't know, but we would be lawsuiting away for decades.

Edit to add: This is why I find it fruitless to have these conversations with Europeans (most, not all). They seem to have a rather supercilious view of the topic that makes it a non-starter. Try talking a fundie out of Jesus, why don't cha?

[CFLarsen]

The evidence is there.

What to do with it is entirely up to people themselves.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The evidence is there.

What to do with it is entirely up to people themselves.

Agree. And firearms laws are being loosened so the people have spoken.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ed
.... Another fact is that most Europeans are ignorant ....
Helping you cut to the chase ..... :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Agree. And firearms laws are being loosened so the people have spoken.
So, despite the proven harm it does, it is OK, as long as people get what they want?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Cleon
*groan* Yay, another gun thread. And with Claus launching this one, how long do you suppose it'll be before it turns into a pissing match between Claus and Shanek? :nope:

Too late.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives. Or something like that.

[UserGoogol]

The sole argument of this thread is that knives are less dangerous than guns. And that's true. Guns can do all sorts of neat things you can't do with knives, making them somewhat more effective weapons.

Does this mean that guns should be banned? No, there's absolutely no way you can derive an anti-gun argument from this fact any more than you can argue an anti-knife argument from the fact that knives are more dangerous than spoons. All it does is counter some pro-gun arguments.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, despite the proven harm it does, it is OK, as long as people get what they want?

Who makes the determination of what is best for the masses if it results in putting laws in place despite their wishes? This is really the nubbin of the issue, I think that you are suggesting that government should act as a nanny. The problem is what level of risk is acceptable in day to day life? Who decides what laws are necessary? And who watches the watchers?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Who makes the determination of what is best for the masses if it results in putting laws in place despite their wishes? This is really the nubbin of the issue, I think that you are suggesting that government should act as a nanny. The problem is what level of risk is acceptable in day to day life? Who decides what laws are necessary? And who watches the watchers?

Let's see if I got this right.

(Some) Americans don't like it, when (some) Europeans tell them that guns are bad. Americans can decide for themselves what is good and/or bad for them.

If this is so, then I just don't see how you can, at the same time, lament what psychics, homeopaths, healers, dowsers, miraclemongers, astrologers, frenologists, chiromantics, aura-readers, abductionists, crop circle advocates, mind-readers, psychokineticists, exorcists, channelers, Qi Gong masters, Feng Shui experts, and creationists do.

What is wrong with Erich von Daniken, David Icke, Michael Drosnin, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James van Praagh, Joe Newman, Kent Hovind, Karen Boesen?

They give people what they want. And the people decide for themselves what is good and/or bad for them, as well.

Are gun proponents somehow more capable of determining what is good and/or bad? People who believe in psychics say exactly the same thing: That they are perfectly capable of deciding just that.

Why are guns exempt from skepticism?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If this is so, then I just don't see how you can, at the same time, lament what psychics, homeopaths, healers, dowsers, miraclemongers, astrologers, frenologists, chiromantics, aura-readers, abductionists, crop circle advocates, mind-readers, psychokineticists, exorcists, channelers, Qi Gong masters, Feng Shui experts, and creationists do.


Hey, can't we leave the psychokineticists out of this? :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Hey, can't we leave the psychokineticists out of this? :D

Psychokinesis-guys... :p

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let's see if I got this right.

(Some) Americans don't like it, when (some) Europeans tell them that guns are bad. Americans can decide for themselves what is good and/or bad for them.

If this is so, then I just don't see how you can, at the same time, lament what psychics, homeopaths, healers, dowsers, miraclemongers, astrologers, frenologists, chiromantics, aura-readers, abductionists, crop circle advocates, mind-readers, psychokineticists, exorcists, channelers, Qi Gong masters, Feng Shui experts, and creationists do.

What is wrong with Erich von Daniken, David Icke, Michael Drosnin, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James van Praagh, Joe Newman, Kent Hovind, Karen Boesen?

They give people what they want. And the people decide for themselves what is good and/or bad for them, as well.

Are gun proponents somehow more capable of determining what is good and/or bad? People who believe in psychics say exactly the same thing: That they are perfectly capable of deciding just that.

Why are guns exempt from skepticism?

Here's where the analogy breaks down; few on this board would advocate banning psychics, faith healers, and the rest. Yes, we debunk them, yes, we try to advertise far and wide that they're liars and charlatans, but it would set really bad precedents if we tried to outright outlaw these practices.

Likewise, I don't see anything wrong with people who pontificate about how bad guns are. (Except Rosie O'donnell, who should be tried for crimes against humanity.) Sure, yak about it all you like. Hell, I'll probably agree with you a good bit of the time. But you want to ban them? That's where I get off the train.

I'm reminded of a talk Paul Kurtz gave at a CFI conference I attended; he related a story where he'd been speaking at another event, with a colleague from China. They were talking about Chinese quackery, and the other speaker talked about Falun Gong. He reasoned that since Falun Gong was a cult involved in all sorts of quackery, the Chinese government was right to ban and suppress it. Kurtz, obviously, didn't like that one little bit and the next time he got the microphone made that clear.

For myself, while listening to this I found it interesting that since the PRC started cracking down on Falun Gong, the Western world (media, government, opinion) has been very sympathetic to them--despite the fact that they are a cult with no redeeming value whatsoever.

There is a world of difference between "debunking" and "outlawing." Outlawing schmucks like Van Praagh and Popoff won't do anything except turn them into martyrs and have some nasty effects on freedom of speech and religion.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let's see if I got this right.

(Some) Americans don't like it, when (some) Europeans tell them that guns are bad. Americans can decide for themselves what is good and/or bad for them.

Some may. I find it a source of amusement, personally.

If this is so, then I just don't see how you can, at the same time, lament what psychics, homeopaths, healers, dowsers, miraclemongers, astrologers, frenologists, chiromantics, aura-readers, abductionists, crop circle advocates, mind-readers, psychokineticists, exorcists, channelers, Qi Gong masters, Feng Shui experts, and creationists do.

Guns and their aftermath are objective. The claims of these people are objective though their abilities are suspect. The different political mileu these two things operate in is enough to distingush them. In any event, the reality of firearms requires no belief for me. I cannot speak for anyone else.

What is wrong with Erich von Daniken, David Icke, Michael Drosnin, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James van Praagh, Joe Newman, Kent Hovind, Karen Boesen?

They make money on unproven "talents"?

They give people what they want. And the people decide for themselves what is good and/or bad for them, as well.

Right. Which is why they are still in business. I doubt that any serious legislation could be passed to stop them.


Are gun proponents somehow more capable of determining what is good and/or bad? People who believe in psychics say exactly the same thing: That they are perfectly capable of deciding just that.

This dosn't follow. Gun ownership is not builkt on air.

Why are guns exempt from skepticism?

They aren't. That is why a number of national magazines review the makers claims.:) [/QUOTE]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Guns and their aftermath are objective. The claims of these people are objective though their abilities are suspect. The different political mileu these two things operate in is enough to distingush them. In any event, the reality of firearms requires no belief for me. I cannot speak for anyone else.

The political millieu is exactly the same: America. It is the same politicians who allow psychics to operate and to allow guns.

Originally posted by Ed
Right. Which is why they are still in business. I doubt that any serious legislation could be passed to stop them.

Why not? We know that they hurt people, and we also know that guns also hurt people. To some, the hurt that the psychics do is enough to warrant legislation to stop them. To some, the hurt that the guns do is not enough to warrant legislation to stop them.

Originally posted by Ed
This dosn't follow. Gun ownership is not builkt on air.

I'm not talking about gun ownership. I am not talking about rights. I am talking about the damage that guns do to people.

Heck, the constitution could have "The right to choose your psychic". That wouldn't make the hurt less.

Originally posted by Ed
They aren't. That is why a number of national magazines review the makers claims.:)

They hardly review the guns' ability to kill.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The political millieu is exactly the same: America. It is the same politicians who allow psychics to operate and to allow guns.

Simply not so. For a person not aware of all of the firearms controversies in this country it might not be obvious, from over there it must be all but invisible.


Why not? We know that they hurt people, and we also know that guns also hurt people. To some, the hurt that the psychics do is enough to warrant legislation to stop them. To some, the hurt that the guns do is not enough to warrant legislation to stop them.

So does alcohol so do drugs. As I pointed out it is the level of tolerance that people have to pain. It may come as a surprise but not all really wish to live in a riskless environment. In this country there are guarentees of speech and association so you can forget about legislation.


I'm not talking about gun ownership. I am not talking about rights. I am talking about the damage that guns do to people.

You cannot tolerate it. So be it. But you don't speak for the majority in the US.

Heck, the constitution could have "The right to choose your psychic". That wouldn't make the hurt less.



They hardly review the guns' ability to kill.

They do precisely that. [/QUOTE]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Simply not so. For a person not aware of all of the firearms controversies in this country it might not be obvious, from over there it must be all but invisible.

I wasn't talking about European politicians, but Americans.

Is it not the same politicians who makes laws about guns and psychics?

Originally posted by Ed
So does alcohol so do drugs. As I pointed out it is the level of tolerance that people have to pain. It may come as a surprise but not all really wish to live in a riskless environment. In this country there are guarentees of speech and association so you can forget about legislation.

My question is: If people are so concerned about Sylvia Browne cheating, scamming and hurting other people, why do they accept so many dead people from guns?

Sure, it is a risk assessment. But a very peculiar one.

Originally posted by Ed
You cannot tolerate it. So be it. But you don't speak for the majority in the US.

No, I don't. And I am not talking about that - I am talking about those here, claiming to be skeptics, yet have vastly different standards when it comes to hurt and legislation to prevent it.

Originally posted by Ed
They do precisely that.

Do they list the number of casualites per second? Do they list how many people have been killed with a certain model?

[Globert]

What Ed Said.

And as far as Guns vs. Knives..

did it ever occur that it is precisely the fact that guns are more lethal, and from a distance, that makes them so GOOD?! Why in Ed's name would a body defend themselves with knife (or what have you) when a gun is manifestly superior to the task at hand?

-Globe

@#$## spelling edit

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why are guns exempt from skepticism?

Because they go BANG and make my gentleman go hard.

[Tony]

Why are guns exempt from skepticism?

They're not dumbass.

The fact that you're atleast trying to be skeptical about guns in this thread proves that guns are not exempt from skepticism.

[thaiboxerken]

I think I'll go out and buy a gun just to spite CFL.

[H3LL]

What a strange thread?!?

Just a few points that spring to mind:

Example:
You need a weapon to assist you to kill. Before you, in easy reach, are a gun, a stout combat knife, an ice-pick and a spoon. You have experience with using each item. You have 1 second to decide.

Which do you choose?

The tired old phrase that "guns don't kill...people do" is still true.

In some countries, exposure to guns is common and many have the confidence to use them. In other counties, the weapon of choice may be the knife as they have had no personal experience with firearms and are as fearful of hurting themselves as their intended target.

I seem to remember there is a country in Europe (Switzerland, maybe) where all males of a certain age are required by law to not only learn how to use a weapon but maintain one at home. The homicide rate per capita is very low. This may be apocryphal, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The focus should not be on the weapon, but the circumstances that create the environment where they are used to harm another.

More should be done about the circumstances instead of focus on the weapon.

A gang killing in America may often involve a firearm. A gang killing in Africa may often involve a machete.

What is the real murder weapon. The gun? The Machete? Or the environment that allows the gang culture to flourish?

Shouting "bad gun" or "bad machete" or "bad spoon" is smoke and mirrors confusing cause and effect as it is much easier to deal with than the real problems.

In America, IMHO if all guns were vaporised tonight, many of those that seek to kill will continue to do so but change tactics and weapons. The culture causing the aggression still remains, whether attack or defence.

The argument about which weapon is more dangerous is just plain silly and pedantic picking over semantics and meanigless brandishing of statistics.

If knives were more dangerous or as dangerous as firearms, we wouldn't have firearms.

Why buy a weapon that can have mechanical failure when you can use an equally/more effective weapon with a tiny chance of mechanical failure? Because we have firearms, by their very existence they must be more effective for killing, otherwise we would just have really good knives, swords and bows. This case being perfectly illustrated with the use of very early firearms. The existing weapons were better. It was not until firearms were improved for combat that they became more widely used.

Think for yourself, like the above example, if the choices were a 14th century hand cannon, Toledo steel sabre, an ice-pick or a spoon. Which would you choose?

http://www.savetheguns.com/images/Handcannon.jpg
(It looks at though it might be good as a club) :)

Correction to the tired old phrase.. "Guns don't kill...people putting bullets in them and using them kill." :D

I think everyone should own guns. Just me to have the bullets. :D

Don't argue with me...I have a spoon....MwuHahahahaaaa!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by H3LL
Don't argue with me...I have a spoon....MwuHahahahaaaa!

Your spoon doesn't faze me, for I have a robotic monkey programmed to strangle people with piano wire. Also, the monkey can become invisible.

Once those things hit the market, all the fuss about guns and gun control will die out.

[thaiboxerken]

Aren't bayonets illegal?

[c0rbin]

Our goal as skeptics, Claus, should be not to ban, but to educate.

You mentioned that a constitution should have "Freedom to choose your own psychic" in its text. Well, through freedom of speech and the right to practice religion, it does.

On the same note (thank you very much), gun advocates promote education to cover the safety-related accidents and anybody who thinks for a second about the history of mankind knows that banning guns will not stop murder.

Your Viking ancestors had not a single gun between them, yet they raped and murdered their way into history.

I say ban murder if you are going ban anything...oh, wait murder _is_ illegal.

Why is it that people still murder, then?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Our goal as skeptics, Claus, should be not to ban, but to educate.

You mentioned that a constitution should have "Freedom to choose your own psychic" in its text. Well, through freedom of speech and the right to practice religion, it does.

If that is the case, then you allow con-artists to exploit the not-so-informed. They can go about their business, and they will, because there will always be a market for them.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

[corplinx]

All you have proven is that guns are used more often, not that they are more dangerous. Once again you let your biases guide you.

Here is a more proper determination of dangerous in an empirical fashion.

The ratio of people assaulted with a gun or knife to the amount of people who die from the attack.

If 1 in 4 people gun shot victims dies whereas 1 in 10 knife victims die then you will have a much more objective metric of how "dangerous" each thing is; not merely how popular it is to use them for assault.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If that is the case, then you allow con-artists to exploit the not-so-informed. They can go about their business, and they will, because there will always be a market for them.

So you advocate restrictions on religious freedom?

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin
On the same note (thank you very much), gun advocates promote education to cover the safety-related accidents and anybody who thinks for a second about the history of mankind knows that banning guns will not stop murder.

Scope this hypocrisy c0rbin.

So-called "liberals" think that the best way to reduce teen pregnancy, and STD's is sex education. But the way to reduce murders, robberies and accidental gun deaths is to ban guns and keep the populace ignorant of their proper use, in effect, abstinence only gun education.

So-called "conservatives" think the best way to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs is "abstinence only" sex "education" which effectively keeps kids ignorant of the facts at large. But that proper gun education and ownership is the best way to reduce accidents, robberies and murders.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
All you have proven is that guns are used more often, not that they are more dangerous. Once again you let your biases guide you.

Eh.......when the guns are used more often, they also kill a heck of a lot more people. How is this not "dangerous"?

Originally posted by corplinx
Here is a more proper determination of dangerous in an empirical fashion.

The ratio of people assaulted with a gun or knife to the amount of people who die from the attack.

If 1 in 4 people gun shot victims dies whereas 1 in 10 knife victims die then you will have a much more objective metric of how "dangerous" each thing is; not merely how popular it is to use them for assault.

Sorry, already did that. There are knives in every American home, but not guns. Yet, guns have a far, far higher death count.

Wanna try again?

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Tony
Scope this hypocrisy c0rbin.

So-called "liberals" think that the best way to reduce teen pregnancy, and STD's is sex education. But the way to reduce murders, robberies and accidental gun deaths is to ban guns and keep the populace ignorant of their proper use, in effect, abstinence only gun education.

So-called "conservatives" think the best way to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs is "abstinence only" sex "education" which effectively keeps kids ignorant of the facts at large. But that proper gun education and ownership is the best way to reduce accidents, robberies and murders.

I have heard this somewhere before and it is unfortunate, IMO, that simplistic politics become the platform of groupthink.

We are individuals before we are Conservatives or Liberals

I am glad we live in a country where I can choose what I think is best for my children and protect them with deadly force if I need to.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
So you advocate restrictions on religious freedom?

No, I advocate restrictions on how much pain and suffering a person can inflict on another.

Are you advocating that a religion should be allowed to hurt people?

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If that is the case, then you allow con-artists to exploit the not-so-informed. They can go about their business, and they will, because there will always be a market for them.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

John Edward has turned himself into a very rich man by selling a fantasy that people believe in.

It is dispicable, but it is also the choice that these people make.

Through education, these people can make better choices and there will be less of a market for the snake oil salemen of the world.

Banning them is the wrong route.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, I advocate restrictions on how much pain and suffering a person can inflict on another.

Ok, as long as the "pain and suffering" is indeed pain and suffering in the eye's of the person on the receiving end.

Are you advocating that a religion should be allowed to hurt people?

Not if the people being "hurt" actually see it as hurt.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Sorry, already did that. There are knives in every American home, but not guns. Yet, guns have a far, far higher death count.

Wanna try again?

Here is a more proper determination of dangerous in an empirical fashion.

The ratio of people assaulted with a gun or knife to the amount of people who die from the attack.

If 1 in 4 people gun shot victims dies whereas 1 in 10 knife victims die then you will have a much more objective metric of how "dangerous" each thing is; not merely how popular it is to use them for assault.

There, I tried again. Perhaps you won't dodge it this time. I have a very low tolerance for nonsense today.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
There, I tried again. Perhaps you won't dodge it this time. I have a very low tolerance for nonsense today.

I'm not the one dodging, you are.

If there are so many more knives than guns, why do guns account for a much higher percentage of the murders?

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm not the one dodging, you are.

Yes you are.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm not the one dodging, you are.

If there are so many more knives than guns, why do guns account for a much higher percentage of the murders?

Claus, let me try to get you out of "Argueing for Arguement Sake Mode".

You have proven that guns are a more popular murder weapon than knives but not that they are more dangerous per se.

However, since murder is your baseline I think that proving Guns are much more dangerous you should compare the number of people who die versus those who live when assaulted with a knife or gun.

You may be right that guns are much more dangerous but you need to provide a clearer and less disputable proof. Your current attempt is a bit indirect.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm not the one dodging, you are.

If there are so many more knives than guns, why do guns account for a much higher percentage of the murders?

Because guns are used more often with the intent to kill. This doesn't necessarily make them more dangerous, just more prevalent in violent confrontations.

Now, I don't disagree that guns are inherently more dangerous than knives, but your use of statistics here is just silly. Actually, the whole discussion is silly. "Dangerous" is such a nebolus term that your statement is meaningless without giving a clear explanation of just what you mean with "dangerous" in this context.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
You have proven that guns are a more popular murder weapon than knives but not that they are more dangerous per se.

Nice spin, but no cigar.

I have proven that guns are used in the majority of murders in the US, despite it is not the most widespread murder weapon.

That makes guns far more dangerous than knives.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Actually, the whole discussion is silly. "Dangerous" is such a nebolus term that your statement is meaningless without giving a clear explanation of just what you mean with "dangerous" in this context.
I thought that was pretty clear: Dangerous, as in "killing people".

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I thought that was pretty clear: Dangerous, as in "killing people".

But by that definition cars are more dangerous than guns, dogs are more dangerous than lions, knives are more dangerous than hand-grenades and alchohol is more dangerous than cyanide. Most people would balk at such statements, since they don't correspond to the normal use of the word "dangerous."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
But by that definition cars are more dangerous than guns, dogs are more dangerous than lions, knives are more dangerous than hand-grenades and alchohol is more dangerous than cyanide. Most people would balk at such statements, since they don't correspond to the normal use of the word "dangerous."

No, no, no. We are talking crime here. Murder.

There may be some murders by dogs, but I really don't think there are that many.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nice spin, but no cigar.

I have proven that guns are used in the majority of murders in the US, despite it is not the most widespread murder weapon.

That makes guns far more dangerous than knives.


Damn, I haven't seen a post reach this caliber on non-sense since Ion last posted.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, no, no. We are talking crime here. Murder.

The goal posts are moved once again...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, no, no. We are talking crime here. Murder.

That's completely irrelevant to what you mean with the word "dangerous" and how you've failed to provide a clear explanation of what you meant with your original statement.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tony
Damn, I haven't seen a post reach this caliber on non-sense since Ion last posted.

Claus is usually much more reasonable than this, I suspect he misses arguing with Shanek and is trying to find a new mark.

You will note I haven't claimed that knives are just as dangerous as guns. I am not arguing against his thesis. I am merely pointing out that his evidence is inconclusive and indirect.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
That's completely irrelevant to what you mean with the word "dangerous" and how you've failed to provide a clear explanation of what you meant with your original statement.

I've explained what I meant. Can't do much more than that.

If you think you can explain better what I mean, go ahead.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Scope this hypocrisy c0rbin.

So-called "liberals" think that the best way to reduce teen pregnancy, and STD's is sex education. But the way to reduce murders, robberies and accidental gun deaths is to ban guns and keep the populace ignorant of their proper use, in effect, abstinence only gun education.

So-called "conservatives" think the best way to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs is "abstinence only" sex "education" which effectively keeps kids ignorant of the facts at large. But that proper gun education and ownership is the best way to reduce accidents, robberies and murders.
Yep, total hypocracy, cause guns and sex is the same thing, right. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Yep, total hypocracy

Pretty much. If abstinence only gun education is the way to solve the problems wrought by guns, abstinence only sex education is the way to solve the problems wrought by sex and vice versa. Personally, and as a man of impeccable integrity who despises hypocrisy, I’m for education in both spheres. What about you? Do you support education or ignorance?

[Cleon]

I think Tony's point is valid, if a little clumsy. No, of course sex and guns aren't the same thing. (But they do have some similarities--you can get a good bang out of either. :D)

But both sex and guns are accompanied with a serious amount of FUD. The recent study of the incredible BS contained in many abstinence-only education programs whows where it lays (:D) in the sex department. For guns, well, just look at the assault weapon ban; listening to some Democrats, you'd think that particular legislation was the only thing between a crimefree society and lawless anarchy.

Good sex education leads to responsible sexual practices. Good firearms education leads to responsible gun use.

However, even with good education, you're still going to have irresponsibility. As we say in IT, "there is no patch for stupid." You can have the best sex education program on the planet, and some teenagers will still get pregnant, AIDS and other STDs will still exist, and some people won't know a rubber from a raincoat.

Same deal with guns. Even with good education, crime will still exist. Murders will still occur. Some moron will leave a loaded gun where his kid can get it and tragedy will arise.

And in both these situations, some people will use the tragedies, mistakes, and stupidities to say "Look! This proves that sex/guns are a bad thing!"

Look at it from the other end as well. Even with abstinence-only education, kids still have sex, get pregnant, STDs, etc. And with a ban on guns, people will still get guns, crimes will still occur, only otherwise law-abiding people will find themselves criminalized.

All in all, it's not the best analogy; I think marijuana prohibition is more apt. But the similarities are there, and I think the overall point is valid.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Pretty much. If abstinence only gun education is the way to solve the problems wrought by guns, abstinence only sex education is the way to solve the problems wrought by sex and vice versa.
Ahh, but why stop there. Obviously people for abstenince must also support outlawing alcohol, tobacco, knives and cars while people for education must support legalisation of and education in tanks, heavy mortars, fighter planes, MOAB bombs and nuclear weapons. If not they're hypocrites.
Originally posted by Tony
Personally, and as a man of impeccable integrity who despises hypocrisy, I’m for education in both spheres. What about you? Do you support education or ignorance?
Personally, and as a man of impaccable intelligence who despises idiocy, I'm for making up my mind on a case by case basis, depending on the relative merits and risks of education vs. prohibitation in each case.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleon
I think Tony's point is valid, if a little clumsy. No, of course sex and guns aren't the same thing. (But they do have some similarities--you can get a good bang out of either. :D)
I disagree, sure there are similarities but that doesn't make the overall point valid, the overall point seem to be that you must favour the exact same approach in either case, but that's only true if there are no (relevant) differences, not just because we can think of some similarities. There's no hypocracy in favouring different approaches on guns and sex unless your preference is based entirelly on an ideological preferens towards education or prohibitation.

Originally posted by Cleon
But both sex and guns are accompanied with a serious amount of FUD. The recent study of the incredible BS contained in many abstinence-only education programs whows where it lays (:D) in the sex department. For guns, well, just look at the assault weapon ban; listening to some Democrats, you'd think that particular legislation was the only thing between a crimefree society and lawless anarchy.
I have noticed a certain tendency towards extremism on those issues, personally I'll admit that I don't really have enough information to have a really informed opinion on gun issues.

Originally posted by Cleon
Good sex education leads to responsible sexual practices. Good firearms education leads to responsible gun use.
That's properbly technically true, but it's grossly simplistic. Even if education helps on both issues that doesn't mean it helps equally. Also it's not given that the alternatives in gun control and abstinence only programs have equal effect. I rather doubt that they have, and even if they do that's hardly immediatly obvious that it would be so.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Cleon

However, even with good education, you're still going to have irresponsibility. As we say in IT, "there is no patch for stupid." You can have the best sex education program on the planet, and some teenagers will still get pregnant, AIDS and other STDs will still exist, and some people won't know a rubber from a raincoat.

Same deal with guns. Even with good education, crime will still exist. Murders will still occur. Some moron will leave a loaded gun where his kid can get it and tragedy will arise.


Maybe outlaw guns and sex for stupid people.

If it does become law, then the kids will have more motivation to study.:D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, no, no. We are talking crime here. Murder.


Then let me educate you a bit on murder. I live in a city with one of the best trauma centers in the United States. If you have any sort of life sign there is a good chance you will be saved.

As such:
There are about 5000 "aggravated assaults" in Memphis tennessee a year but only 200 murders (or, an aggravated assault which results in death to be technical).

This is I think basing your metric simply on murder numbers is flawed since there are many more assaults then just those result in death. However, death is a good determination of the subjective term "dangerous".

Try to get some numbers on the overall picture of how many die when assaulted with a gun versus when assaulted with a knife and you have a much better point Claus.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Obviously people for abstenince must also support outlawing alcohol, tobacco, knives and cars while people for education must support legalisation of and education in tanks, heavy mortars, fighter planes, MOAB bombs and nuclear weapons.

Why?

Personally, and as a man of impaccable intelligence who despises idiocy

Obviously not (see above).

I'm for making up my mind on a case by case basis, depending on the relative merits and risks of education vs. prohibitation in each case.

Not likely.

[c0rbin]

Corplinx,

Your logic is sound. The only problem you have with regard to Claus is that you are an American and are probably too stupid to even be on a computer.

Sorry, man we are all working from some violent, uneducated deficit that will never allow us to see the error of our ways.

:usa:

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Why?
If abstinence only gun education is the way to solve the problems wrought by guns, abstinence only nuke/tank/mortar education is the way to solve the problems wrought by nukes/tanks/mortars and vice versa.

Originally posted by Tony
Obviously not (see above).
I'm not the one unable to understand the logical implication of my own arguments. Care to explain why one must necessarilly have the same opinions on guns and sex, but not on guns and bigger guns?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleon

Look at it from the other end as well. Even with abstinence-only education, kids still have sex, get pregnant, STDs, etc. And with a ban on guns, people will still get guns, crimes will still occur, only otherwise law-abiding people will find themselves criminalized.

All in all, it's not the best analogy; I think marijuana prohibition is more apt. But the similarities are there, and I think the overall point is valid.

If gun control laws are reasonably effective, and there are plenty of places where they are, then it is difficult for the average idiot to get one. Because they are illegal and hard to get, they are very expensive. We have just had a major gangland war in Melbourne, which finally seems to have ended, and the only people do die in it were crims.

The major worry for young kids are knives, and the police and politicians are trying to ensure we don't get that culture happening. An illegall handgun, IIRC, costs about $5,000.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
If abstinence only gun education is the way to solve the problems wrought by guns, abstinence only nuke/tank/mortar education is the way to solve the problems wrought by nukes/tanks/mortars and vice versa.


Ok, I see. And I disagree. People should be educated as to the destructive and deadly power of such weapons and the human suffering such weapons inflict. I am against abstinence only nuke/tank/mortar education.

Care to explain why one must necessarilly have the same opinions on guns and sex

Because they are both controversial issues that require education to be handled responsibly.

but not on guns and bigger guns?

Those things you mentioned are not bigger guns. Making such a contention reveals your poor knowledge of the subject and your unfitness to debate on the topic with any credibility.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon
I think Tony's point is valid, if a little clumsy.

I can concede that.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If gun control laws are reasonably effective, and there are plenty of places where they are, then it is difficult for the average idiot to get one. Because they are illegal and hard to get, they are very expensive. We have just had a major gangland war in Melbourne, which finally seems to have ended, and the only people do die in it were crims.


Ah, so that makes it ok.

That's kinda my point--the purpose of banning guns is to keep it out of the criminals' hands, not "the average idiot." Clearly even where gun control is "reasonably effective," criminals still can get guns and there are still gangland wars.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
...and there are plenty of places where they are...

And those places would be....???

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Ok, I see. And I disagree. People should be educated as to the destructive and deadly power of such weapons and the human suffering such weapons inflict. I am against abstinence only nuke/tank/mortar education.
Lots of anti gun people would propably support teaching children about the destructive and deadly power of such weapons and the human suffering such weapons inflict and thus be against abstinence only gun education. Do you then not think these people are hypocrites even if they support non-abstinency based sex education?
Originally posted by Tony
Because they are both controversial issues that require education to be handled responsibly.
So anything that's controversial must be legalized?

Originally posted by Tony
Those things you mentioned are not bigger guns. Making such a contention reveals your poor knowledge of the subject and your unfitness to debate on the topic with any credibility.
OK I just checked dictionary.com and apparently guns need to have a flat trajectionary so mortars are contrary to what I thought not guns. Now that you have made you completly irrelevant semantic ad hom, would you please answer the question. Why do you need to have the same opinion on sex and guns, but not on guns and mortars/tanks/nukes?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I have noticed a certain tendency towards extremism on those issues, personally I'll admit that I don't really have enough information to have a really informed opinion on gun issues.


Yet you make the absurd contention:

Ahh, but why stop there. Obviously people for abstenince must also support outlawing alcohol, tobacco, knives and cars while people for education must support legalisation of and education in tanks, heavy mortars, fighter planes, MOAB bombs and nuclear weapons. If not they're hypocrites.

We have met the extremists and him am you.

[c0rbin]

I think if you are going to ban things from the "average idiot" than you should start with the automobile.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do you then not think these people are hypocrites even if they support non-abstinency based sex education?


I don't know. Do they also favor gun education and safety?

So anything that's controversial must be legalized?

I don't see how you got that from what I said.

OK I just checked dictionary.com and apparently guns need to have a flat trajectionary so mortars are contrary to what I thought not guns.

Neither are tanks or nukes.

Why do you need to have the same opinion on sex and guns, but not on guns and mortars/tanks/nukes?

Practically speaking, tank/mortars/nukes are a non-issue in this context so any discussion about their education is irrelevant. It's dumb to compare weapons of war to things that exist in the context of peacetime domestic life.

But if they were an issue (like, if there was an impending invasion) education on tanks/mortars/nukes would be a necessity.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
And those places would be....???
Denmark for one, proberbly most of the old EU countries though I'm not quite sure of that. We have much lower rates of gun violence than in the US according to {URL=http://www.jm.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=51673]this statistic[/URL] (in Danish I'm afraid] by the Danish ministry of law (or whatever, the area that Ashcroft was in charge of) only about 0,2% of all violent crimes in Denmark was commited using guns.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Denmark for one, proberbly most of the old EU countries thoguh I'm not quite sure of that.

So absolutely no criminals have guns in Denmark? What about cops?

by the Danish ministry of law (or whatever, the area that Ashcroft was in charge of) only about 0,2% of all violent crimes in Denmark was commited using guns.

But guns were still used and you STILL have violent crime.

I'm always amused when anti-gun types bring up the violent crime statistic and the violent crime used by gun statistic like it makes a difference. Violent crime still exists, yes? What difference does it make if a gun, a baseball bat or a knife were used? It only makes a difference to people who want to demonize guns and shift the focus of concern from violent crime to mere gun crime. Personally, I prefer to focus on violent crime as a problem.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Ed
Yet you make the absurd contention:
That was irony, I'm told Americans have trouble understanding that. :p


Originally posted by Ed

We have met the extremists and him am you.
You have met the extremists and him am me? :D

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
So absolutely no criminals have guns in Denmark? What about cops?
well approximatly 0,2% of all violent crimes are commited using guns, so obviously some criminals have guns, but it's very rare compared to the US (about 40 times rarer if memory serves). Cops have guns though which they carry at all times when on duty.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
well approximatly 0,2% of all violent crimes are commited using guns, so obviously some criminals have guns

Then it would appear that gun control isn't reasonably effective if criminals still can get their hands on guns.

Cops have guns though which they carry at all times when on duty.

This may be a subject for another thread, but cops with guns are no better than criminals with guns.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Then it would appear that gun control isn't reasonably effective if criminals still can get their hands on guns.
Only if you define reasonably effective as 100% effective, if you define reasonably effective as, say reasonably effective, then it would seem it is reasonably effective.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Then it would appear that gun control isn't reasonably effective if criminals still can get their hands on guns.

For whose meaning of "reasonable"? It shows that gun control isn't absolutely effective, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. Why bring Utopic ideals into a discussion of real world politics?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony

But guns were still used and you STILL have violent crime.
This is just plain idiotic, I point out that the rate of gun crimes is smaller than that of US by a factor 40 and you say "but you still have guns, having guns is not just a question fo yes no, but of how many and how often.

Originally posted by Tony
I'm always amused when anti-gun types bring up the violent crime statistic and the violent crime used by gun statistic like it makes a difference. Violent crime still exists, yes? What difference does it make if a gun, a baseball bat or a knife were used? It only makes a difference to people who want to demonize guns and shift the focus of concern from violent crime to mere gun crime. Personally, I prefer to focus on violent crime as a problem.
And I'm always amused when pro-gun types begin burning straw men. AUP said that there were examples of places with strick gun laws, where guns were endeed rare, and you asked where? I gave an example. I totally agree that a smaller frequency of gun crimes does not by itself prove that there is less violent crime overall, but I didn't say otherwise.

As for your argument that it makes no difference whether the attacker has a gun, a knife or a baseball bat I disagree. I'd much prefer to be attacked with a knife or a baseball bat, since might be able to outrun them. Also I'm inclined to think that guns are generally more lethal than either knives or baseball bats.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Only if you define reasonably effective as 100% effective, if you define reasonably effective as, say reasonably effective, then it would seem it is reasonably effective.

I don't consider it reasonable. Especially considering that the victims are still defenseless against the criminals with guns.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Why bring Utopic ideals into a discussion of real world politics?

Gun control is a utopian ideal.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kerberos
This may be a subject for another thread, but cops with guns are no better than criminals with guns.
well no cop has ever tried to beat me up, threaten me or anything alse so I'm inclined to disagree. Still It is as you say a subject for another thread.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Gun control is a utopian ideal.

Only in the same manner as "Crime control" is an utopian ideal. Perfect gun control is an utopian ideal - merely regular, down-to-earth, imperfect, non-rethoric gun control is not.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
This is just plain idiotic, I point out that the rate of gun crimes is smaller than that of US by a factor 40 and you say "but you still have guns, having guns is not just a question fo yes no, but of how many and how often.

I disagree. If your goal isn't a completely safe and secure populace any laws concerning gun control exist just to satisfy people's anti-gun ideology and sensibilities.

As for your argument that it makes no difference whether the attacker has a gun, a knife or a baseball bat I disagree. I'd much prefer to be attacked with a knife or a baseball bat, since might be able to outrun them.

I'd rather be in a situation where I wouldn't be attacked at all, or have the means with which to defend myself if an attack should occur. As it is now, you have neither. You are defenseless (against your government, criminals, and hostile threats alike) because your government has declared that you be so.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
...merely regular, down-to-earth, imperfect, non-rethoric gun control is not.

Yes it is, because it ignores reality.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
For whose meaning of "reasonable"? It shows that gun control isn't absolutely effective, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. Why bring Utopic ideals into a discussion of real world politics?

I agree. From now on why not take into account that there are at least 250,000,000 guns in the US. How do you realistically address that?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Yes it is, because it ignores reality.

Says you. Others, I among them, disagree.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Says you.

The facts say otherwise.

Others, I among them, disagree.

Bigots tend to ignore evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ed
I agree. From now on why not take into account that there are at least 250,000,000 guns in the US. How do you realistically address that?

Certainly not by imposing European-style gun control legislation over night. For one thing, a large portion of the US population does not want such legislation, and even if they did it would take decades to reduce the number of handguns and ammunition that is in circulation to a point where there would be any seriously problems for criminals to get hold of firearms.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to "put the Djinni back in the bottle" nor do I think that all and every gun-control legislation in the USA would be ineffective and useless. In other words, the gun-culture and number of guns in existance in the US might very well be an argument against any specific gun-control measure, but I don't see that it's an argument against gun-control measures in general.

Edited to add:

Of course, this is all academic and is more a comment on the discussions on gun control than on gun control in the USA. It's not my country, and it's certainly not up to me to decide what is deseirable for you. I'm saying I believe that gun control measures could be applied in the US, not that they necessarily should.

[c0rbin]

I wonder how easy it would be to govern population of 290 million versus a population of 5.4 million?

I am sure that Denmark has its own peculiar problems (as presented in this thread).

But when you are running a country with the population of a single suburb of a large US city, one has to wonder to what utopian degree one would asipre if the Odin's hammer were in the other hand.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I wonder how easy it would be to govern population of 290 million versus a population of 5.4 million?

All it takes is will.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I wonder how easy it would be to govern population of 290 million versus a population of 5.4 million?
I'm not really sure how population makes a difference in this subject. the entire old EU has 350 million people, and I don't see how gun crime would suddenly explode, if they decided to make it the United States of Europe.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That would be justifiable homicide. Check the same page, table 2.17: 1% are justifiable homicides.

Your right to defend yourself comes at a very high price: A pile of dead bodies.

So, it's purely a numbers games. Say, you are attacked in your home by three intruders. You use your gun to kill the three who are attacking you and the result is a relative loss to society versus allowing those three to kill you which nets only one lost life?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by billydkid
So, it's purely a numbers games. Say, you are attacked in your home by three intruders. You use your gun to kill the three who are attacking you and the result is a relative loss to society versus allowing those three to kill you which nets only one lost life?

It's a matter of how many dead people from criminal activity a society is prepared to accept. Lives are clearly considered worth less in the US than elsewhere.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's a matter of how many dead people from criminal activity a society is prepared to accept. Lives are clearly considered worth less in the US than elsewhere.

Not really. You guys leave your citizens to the slaughter; we give them a means with which to protect themselves.

[crimresearch]

Just remember...

When guns are outlawed...

Only the Police will have guns.


(But they can use them to escort anyone who marries a swarthy foreigner to the airport).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
Not really. You guys leave your citizens to the slaughter; we give them a means with which to protect themselves.

You "forget" one thing: There's not much of a "slaughter" here...

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There's not much of a "slaughter" here...


The operative word here being "much". My point still stands.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
The operative word here being "much". My point still stands.
No I doesn't, If we followed your ridicilous "logic" and said that deggree doesn't matter, then there's no reason to have guns, since they don't give 100% protection either. You can't even apply your bizare logic consistently.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
The operative word here being "much". My point still stands.

No, it doesn't. You are wrong. Pure and simple. There are far, far less "slaugthering" in Denmark than in the US.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Just remember...

When guns are outlawed...

Only the Police will have guns.


(But they can use them to escort anyone who marries a swarthy foreigner to the airport).
They could, but if they did they might get a bit of trouple from fx the European human rights court.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
No I doesn't, If we followed your ridicilous "logic" and said that deggree doesn't matter, then there's no reason to have guns, since they don't give 100% protection either. You can't even apply your bizare logic consistently.

Thats not my logic. As usual, you misunderstand.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
(But they can use them to escort anyone who marries a swarthy foreigner to the airport).

Interesting to see how urban legends originate. They start from either stupidity or malice. Perhaps both.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, it doesn't. You are wrong. Pure and simple.

So wait, your country does allow it's "citizens" to protect themselves with guns if necessary?

There are far, far less "slaugthering" in Denmark than in the US.

Irrelevant. It still doesn't change the fact that you force your innocent citizens to die rather than have the means to defend themselves.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Thats not my logic. You misunderstand.

It is analogous reasoning. It follows that if you support one of these lines of reason, you will have to support both or either a) hold the reasoning itself in error, b) hold at least one position despite knowing that your position is unreasonable.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
So wait, your country does allow it's "citizens" to protect themselves with guns if necessary?

No. You know that.

And that's where your argument breaks down: People in Denmark can't defend themselves with guns, so why aren't they killed in far greater numbers than in the US, where people can defend themselves with guns?

I would love to hear your explanation.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
It is analogous reasoning.

No it's not, it's not even close.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Irrelevant. It still doesn't change the fact that you force your innocent citizens to die rather than have the means to defend themselves.

In the same manner as every other country prohibts its citizens some means of defence; it's just a matter of where the line is drawn. In Denmark the line is drawn just below firearms, in the USA it's drawn pretty much at firearms.

Edited to add: Besides, these are Danish citizens you're talking about. "Innocent" is perhaps not the best term to describe them. :-p

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, it doesn't. You are wrong. Pure and simple. There are far, far less "slaugthering" in Denmark than in the US.

I agree with that. But two questions immediately pop to mind:


Is that due to Denmark's gun laws, or other factors? Denmark has a range of social welfare programs and a much lower income disparity in the United States; historically, countries that "take care of their own" have much lower crime rates--especially violent crime rates--than those that don't. Hell, I know if I had six weeks of paid vacation every year I'd be much less prone to violence. :D (And no, I don't own a gun.)
Even if gun control is a direct factor in that, is it worth taking away a freedom for a real or perceived boost in safety? We could virtually eliminate motorcycle accidents by banning motorcycles. Perhaps we could eliminate computer virii by banning computers. But the removal of freedoms such as these, despite safety issues, is not something to be taken lightly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
No it's not, it's not even close.

Don't merely assert it. Explain why.

[CFLarsen]

Cleon,

Why is it so difficult to relate guns to gun-related crime?

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. You know that.


Than I guess I'm not wrong.

People in Denmark can't defend themselves with guns, so why aren't they killed in far greater numbers than in the US, where people can defend themselves with guns?

This is completely irrelevant to my point.

You deny your people the choice to defend themselves with the means they deem necessary. Numbers are irrelevant; the individual is forced, by law, to allow someone to rape/kill/or steal from them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
In the same manner as every other country prohibts its citizens some means of defence; it's just a matter of where the line is drawn. In Denmark the line is drawn just below firearms, in the USA it's drawn pretty much at firearms.

I don't buy that for one second. The line isn't "drawn" at firearms (the police have guns). There are ideological and government interests that dictate the citizen's access to firearms.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why is it so difficult to relate guns to gun-related crime?

For the same reason it's difficult to relate blacks to black related crime.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Cleon,

Why is it so difficult to relate guns to gun-related crime?

Much as the soundbite sounds great, it fails to address the substance of my post.

The question is not the "relationship," it's whether guns are a primary cause of the difference in crime rates or whether other factors are involved. Correlation does not show causation, and in the situation of two societies as different as Denmark and the US, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume otherwise.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
I don't buy that for one second. The line isn't "drawn" at firearms (the police have guns).

The line for personal defense is indeed drawn at that point. Besides, how is it that Danish citizens can't carry handguns while their police can, any different from the US army having anti-personell mines while the citizens don't?

There are ideological and government interests that dictate the citizen's access to firearms.

As someone who comes from and lives in a Scandinavian country: Nonsense. The only place I know of where ideological interests plays a major part in the deciding gun-control legislation is in the US. Here, people just don't consider guns to be that important.

As for "government interests" that's another case of you talking about a situtation you apparently know little about. The Scandinavian countries legislations concerning gun control quite simply aren't consistent with a belief that the intention behind the legislation is to keep guns out of the hands of the citizens less they'll revolt.


Edited to make the first paragraph more legible.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
Much as the soundbite sounds great, it fails to address the substance of my post.

The question is not the "relationship," it's whether guns are a primary cause of the difference in crime rates or whether other factors are involved. Correlation does not show causation, and in the situation of two societies as different as Denmark and the US, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to assume otherwise.

You are not seriously arguing that guns have nothing to do with gun-related crime?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are not seriously arguing that guns have nothing to do with gun-related crime?

Don't be deliberatedly obtuse. He is saying that the difference in violence between the US and Denmark might not be related to the difference in gun-control legislation. It is possible that even if Denmark were to institutie US style gun legislation tomorrow, that it would not affect the murder or assault rates in the long term. (I consider that to be unlikely, but it is possible.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The line for personal defense is indeed drawn at that point. Besides, how is it that Danish citizens can't carry handguns while their police can, any different from the US army having anti-personell mines while the citizens don't?


I've already addressed this type of comparison. It's basically an apples and oranges comparison.

Here, people just don't consider guns to be that important.

Then why do we have Danes lamenting America’s liberal gun laws?

If they aren't that important, why are they illegal?

Why do the police have guns?

As for "government interests" that's another case of you talking about a situtation you apparently know little about. The Scandinavian countries legislations concerning gun control quite simply aren't consistent with a belief that the intention behind the legislation is to keep guns out of the hands of the citizens less they'll revolt.

That may not be their (stated) intent, but that is the result. When the smoke clears and things are said and done, results, not intent, are what count.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
For the same reason it's difficult to relate blacks to black related crime.

And why is that difficult?

You are not arguing your case, you merely assert your points, as if that's enough. It isn't.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleon
I agree with that. But two questions immediately pop to mind:


Is that due to Denmark's gun laws, or other factors? Denmark has a range of social welfare programs and a much lower income disparity in the United States; historically, countries that "take care of their own" have much lower crime rates--especially violent crime rates--than those that don't. Hell, I know if I had six weeks of paid vacation every year I'd be much less prone to violence. :D (And no, I don't own a gun.)
Well It's obviously hard to tell but the higher homicide rate in the US obviously isn't exclusively caused by guns AFAIR you have four times as many hommicides in the US but only slightly more than half your homicides are commited using a gun, so your rate of nongun homicides is higher than In Denmark too. That obviously doesn't prove that guns don't cause more murders but it does prove that other factors are at play too.

Originally posted by Cleon
Even if gun control is a direct factor in that, is it worth taking away a freedom for a real or perceived boost in safety? We could virtually eliminate motorcycle accidents by banning motorcycles. Perhaps we could eliminate computer virii by banning computers. But the removal of freedoms such as these, despite safety issues, is not something to be taken lightly.

I always thought this argument was fairly weak. Motorcycles and especially computers have important functions, but what about guns? Some people think they make you safer, but since we're opperating from the premise that gun control works we can discount that. You can get a permission to hunt and shot in a club too, so that's not a major problem either. For the analogy to be valid you have to find something else that's dangerous but doesn't serve any usefull purpose either.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And why is that difficult?

Why are you stupid?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
I've already addressed this type of comparison. It's basically an apples and oranges comparison.

No, it is not. It's both an example of how a goverment does not allow its citizens access to some means of self defense. The only difference is what the means are.

Then why do we have Danes lamenting America’s liberal gun laws?

Because some Danes loves to debate and discuss, I would suppose.

If they aren't that important, why are they illegal?

They're not, although I fail to see what bizarre logic you use to link illegal with ideological important.

Why do the police have guns?

For the same reason they have truncheons and handcuffs - to be able to excert force when necessary. Do you consider truncheons and handcuffs to be ideologically important?

That may not be their (stated) intent, but that is the result. When the smoke clears and things are said and done, results, not intent, are what count.

No, it's not, actually. Anyway, that doesn't matter as your claim that it was "government interests" that dictated the citizens' access to firearms is nonetheless wrong.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I always thought this argument was fairly weak.

A byproduct of your totalitarian culture.

Motorcyckles and especially computers have important functions, but what about guns?

Freedom isn't predicated on function.

Some people think they make you safer, but since we're opperating from the premise that gun control works we can discount that.

No we can't, because we're not, because it doesn't (and this is demonstrably so).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
No we can't, because we're not, because it doesn't (and this is demonstrably so).

The Pope has spoken. The matter is settled. The rest of us can go home.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
A byproduct of your totalitarian culture.

O....K. You know absolutely nothing about us, then.

Nothing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
No, it is not.


Yes it is. It's silly to compare weapons of war to things that exist in peacetime domestic life.

It's both an example of how a goverment does not allow its citizens access to some means of self defense.

No, it's not. A mine is not "self defense", it's a weapon of war.

They're not

So when I visit Denmark next year, I can buy a gun?

although I fail to see what bizarre logic you use to link illegal with ideological important.

It's pretty simple. If guns aren't important why are they "illegal"?

For the same reason they have truncheons and handcuffs - to be able to excert force when necessary.

So they are important.

Do you consider truncheons and handcuffs to be ideologically important?

Truncheons?

Do I consider handcuffs "ideologically important"? Yes I do. I would be against state attempts to outlaw handcuffs.

No, it's not, actually.

What's not?

Anyway, that doesn't matter as your claim that it was "government interests" that dictated the citizens' access to firearms is nonetheless wrong.

And my claim stands. It's in the government's interests, regardless of their stated intentions, that weapons not be in the hands of the "citizens".

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
O....K. You know absolutely nothing about us, then.


You're the one who said rights come from government (or the people, or society, or whatever euphemism). Do you now retract your statement?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are not seriously arguing that guns have nothing to do with gun-related crime?

*sigh* Come on, Claus, this isn't like you. You know full well I'm not arguing anything of the sort.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Yes it is. It's silly to compare weapons of war to things that exist in peacetime domestic life.

No, it's not. A mine is not "self defense", it's a weapon of war.

And in Denmark, a gun isn't "self defense," it's a weapon of war or a tool of hunting.

So when I visit Denmark next year, I can buy a gun?

You, probably not as you're not a Danish citizen.

It's pretty simple. If guns aren't important why are they "illegal"?


Incest isn't important either, so why's that illegal? Besides, guns are not "illegal."

So they are important.

Not really, and certainly not in an ideological sense. They're a tool, that's all.



Truncheons?

Do I consider handcuffs "ideologically important"? Yes I do. I would be against state attempts to outlaw handcuffs.

You have a very strange sense of the term "ideologically important."

What's not?

The result is not that the citizens are unarmed in the face of the government.

And my claim stands. It's in the government's interests, regardless of their stated intentions, that weapons not be in the hands of the "citizens".

But your claim was that government interests dictated gun-control, not that it merely coincided with it. So, no, your claim does not stand.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The Pope has spoken. The matter is settled. The rest of us can go home.

If gun control works, why does Washington DC have one of the highest murder rates in the US?

If gun control works, why are people being shot in London?

If gun control works, why do LA gangs continue to kill each other (with guns)?

If gun control works, why did the Columbine kids have them?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
*sigh* Come on, Claus, this isn't like you. You know full well I'm not arguing anything of the sort.

Then, I misunderstood you.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
If gun control works, why does Washington DC have one of the highest murder rates in the US?

If gun control works, why are people being shot in London?

If gun control works, why do LA gangs continue to kill each other (with guns)?

If gun control works, why did the Columbine kids have them?

If first aid works, why are people still killed in accidents?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Well It's obviously hard to tell but the higher homicide rate in the US obviously isn't exclusively caused by guns AFAIR you have four times as many hommicides in the US but only slightly more than half your homicides are commited using a gun, so your rate of nongun homicides is higher than In Denmark too. That obviously doesn't prove that guns don't cause more murders but it does prove that other factors are at play too.

Oh, I agree entirely. My point was that comparing only the homocide rates is inconclusive. Correlation != Causation and all that.


I always thought this argument was fairly weak. Motorcycles and especially computers have important functions, but what about guns? Some people think they make you safer, but since we're opperating from the premise that gun control works we can discount that. You can get a permission to hunt and shot in a club too, so that's not a major problem either. For the analogy to be valid you have to find something else that's dangerous but doesn't serve any usefull purpose either.

Actually, many people--my mother among them--would argue that a motorcycle has no important function. :D In the US, motorcycles are used primarily for pleasure. Few people use them as a substitute for cars or other transportation. So it's rather analogous: it's a dangerous toy. Should I then not have the right to own one, because it has no "important function?"

More to the point, though, why does "important function" have a bearing on someone's right to own something? I know a couple people who use their computers primarily for playing violent video games. Hardly an "important function." I have six different banjos, only two or three I play on a regular basis. The last few are mainly wall-hangers. Again, not an "important function."

To me, I find the "important function" bit a weak argument. Since when does a right depend on whether exercising it is an "important function?"

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
A byproduct of your totalitarian culture.
I wondered when you were gonna start rambling about totalitarianism and fascism.

Originally posted by Tony
Freedom isn't predicated on function.
So you're in favour og legalising everything? whether or not it's dangerous and whether or not it's usefull. Thanks for demostrating you're a total lunatic.

Originally posted by Tony
No we can't
Yes, we can.

Originally posted by Tony
because we're not
Yes, we are, Cleon second point was conditional on gun control being the reason for the lower homicide rate.

Originally posted by Tony
because it doesn't (and this is demonstrably so).
Demonstrate it then.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleon
Oh, I agree entirely. My point was that comparing only the homocide rates is inconclusive. Correlation != Causation and all that.



Actually, many people--my mother among them--would argue that a motorcycle has no important function. :D In the US, motorcycles are used primarily for pleasure. Few people use them as a substitute for cars or other transportation. So it's rather analogous: it's a dangerous toy. Should I then not have the right to own one, because it has no "important function?"

Motorcycles use less fuel, are easier to maintain than cars, cheaper, and easier to park. Yer gunna need anuther analogy, boy. :D

As for 'important function', it becomes an issue when the item in question is harmful. You can, after all, have a handgun that's had the barrel filled, and I'd have no problem with anyone owning one. Use that for show all you like. But somehow, I don't think it'd get much support among the NRA types.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
And in Denmark, a gun isn't "self defense," it's a weapon of war or a tool of hunting.

Then why do cops have them?

PS, a gun is a weapon of self defence no matter where you go.

Incest isn't important either, so why's that illegal?

I'd say it is important, that's why it's illegal. It's obviously important enough to be considered a (moral or practical) threat. Why else would it be illegal?

Besides, guns are not "illegal."

Then what are they?

Not really, and certainly not in an ideological sense. They're a tool, that's all.

This "ideological sense" stuff is an example of you moving the goal posts. Perhaps that's what you originally meant, without clarification, I don't know.

You have a very strange sense of the term "ideologically important."

Yes, I know, I know. You danes think things like individual rights, personal soverignty and personal rights are silly.

Who am I to get all uppity? I should be a good boy and remember that my rights come from the government (peace be upon it).

The result is not that the citizens are unarmed in the face of the government.

Huh? So the citizens are armed?

But your claim was that government interests dictated gun-control, not that it merely coincided with it. So, no, your claim does not stand.

I'm willing to concede that.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Then why do cops have them?

To do their job, to excert physical force.

PS, a gun is a weapon of self defence no matter where you go.

In the same sense that landmines are a means of defending yourself no matter where you go.

I'd say it is important, that's why it's illegal. It's obviously important enough to be considered a (moral or practical) threat. Why else would it be illegal?

Because it's undesirable? A lot of unimportant stuff is illegal.

Then what are they?

They're restricted, meaning you have to have a licencse to own one. Their use is also restricted, meaning that there are limits to where and how you can use them (and use includes wearing them.)

This "ideological sense" stuff is an example of you moving the goal posts. Perhaps that's what you originally meant, without clarification, I don't know.

Nonsense. You were the one who brought up ideology, when you said gun control was all about ideology and government interests. I pointed out that nobody here considers guns important enough, in an ideological sense, for there to be any ideology behind the gun control legislations.


Yes, I know, I know. You danes think things like individual rights, personal soverignty and personal rights are silly.

And you Californians think things like other people and social responsibility are silly.

Who am I to get all uppity? I should be a good boy and remember that my rights come from the government (peace be upon it).

Maybe you should direct that comment to the right man?

Huh? So the citizens are armed?

I can't speak for Denmark as I don't know the details there, but for Norway and Sweden - yes. (And no, they're practically never used for self defence.) In fact, the citizens in Norway and Sweden are probably better equipped and situated for fighting an oppressive government than the citizens of the US are.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleon

Actually, many people--my mother among them--would argue that a motorcycle has no important function. :D In the US, motorcycles are used primarily for pleasure. Few people use them as a substitute for cars or other transportation. So it's rather analogous: it's a dangerous toy. Should I then not have the right to own one, because it has no "important function?"
Well Ias a matter of principle I'm in favour of anything that will anoy Hells Angels and Bandidos so...

On a slightly more serious note how dangerous are Motorcycles anyways? I mean to other people than the one who rides it. I'd think they were less dangerous than cars.

Originally posted by Cleon
More to the point, though, why does "important function" have a bearing on someone's right to own something? I know a couple people who use their computers primarily for playing violent video games. Hardly an "important function." I have six different banjos, only two or three I play on a regular basis. The last few are mainly wall-hangers. Again, not an "important function."
It's not solely about having an important function, it's about having an important function and about not being dangerous, plus people enjoying something is to a certain degree also a function. Your example of why computers were dangerous was laughable anyways since computer viruses only hurt computers.

Originally posted by Cleon
To me, I find the "important function" bit a weak argument. Since when does a right depend on whether exercising it is an "important function?"
Since the dawn of time, and I'll bet that when you consider whether something should be legal, you take into account how much people, in your opinion, needs this thing.

Do you favour legalising everything? If not what criteria do you use to determine whether something should be allowed? If you think about it, I think you'll realize that you use also use it. I'll give you an example, a childrens toy is discovered to kill 30.000 people a year. Do you favour outlawing it? I'm guessing you do. Cars however also kill 30.000 (actually I don't know, but it's probably something like that) Do you favour outlawing cars? What's the difference, if not that you think cars are more usefull?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I wondered when you were gonna start rambling about totalitarianism and fascism.

Keep wondering, because I haven't started.

So you're in favour og legalising everything?

No.

whether or not it's dangerous and whether or not it's usefull.

Usefulness is irrelevant. Danger has proven to be a subjective construct so I'd say that too is largely irrelevant.

Yes, we are, Cleon second point was conditional on gun control being the reason for the lower homicide rate.

I'm not Cleon.

Demonstrate it then.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
If first aid works, why are people still killed in accidents?

False anology.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
False anology.

Nonsense. If you're demanding that gun-control must be 100% effective to be valid, why can I not demand the same from first aid?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony

Usefulness is irrelevant. Danger has proven to be a subjective construct so I'd say that too is largely irrelevant.
So you don't think either usefullness or danger should be used to determine whether something should be legal. Do you favour legalizing Nukes,? Why? Why not? You cannot refer to either danger or use.

Originally posted by Tony
I'm not Cleon.
You're irrelevant, the post was from me to Cleon thus "we" are me and Cleon.

Originally posted by Tony
Thanks for admitting your ignorance.
Thanks for admiting you have no evidence.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony

Thanks for admitting your ignorance.

So... You say that gun control demonstrably does not work.

You are asked to demonstrate it.

You respond with the crap above.

Who's ignorant?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
To do their job, to excert physical force.

Well, it's good to know the cops in Denmark drop their guns and give up when faced with a citizen who weilds one.

In the same sense that landmines are a means of defending yourself no matter where you go...

Care to provide evidence of that? Particuarlly that land mines were designed and are used for personal self defense?

Because it's undesirable?

Then it's important enough to be considered undesirable.

They're restricted, meaning you have to have a licencse to own one. Their use is also restricted, meaning that there are limits to where and how you can use them (and use includes wearing them.)

Symbolism over substance. They are still illegal, you just have to get government permission.

You were the one who brought up ideology, when you said gun control was all about ideology and government interests. I pointed out that nobody here considers guns important enough, in an ideological sense, for there to be any ideology behind the gun control legislations.

It's not non-sense. All I was asking was for clarification. Thanks for providing it.

And you Californians think things like other people and social responsibility are silly.

Nice strawman.

In fact, the citizens in Norway and Sweden are probably better equipped and situated for fighting an oppressive government than the citizens of the US are.

Interesting. How exactly?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Nonsense. If you're demanding that gun-control must be 100% effective to be valid

I'm not demanding that retard. Im demanding that it has to be 100% effective to justify restricting personal freedom and constitutional rights.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Well, it's good to know the cops in Denmark drop their guns and give up when faced with a citizen who weilds one.

The point is, the Police in Denmark do not primarily carry their guns to be able to defend themselves against armed attack. They carry them to be able to stop armed persons. That's no more self defense than a fireman's axe is for fire prevention.

Care to provide evidence of that? Particuarlly that land mines were designed and are used for personal self defense?

Oh, so we're talking about personal self defense now? Of course, guns are generally not used for personal self defense in Scandinavia, so that rather invalidates your point.

Then it's important enough to be considered undesirable.

Yes, things really have to be important for that.

Symbolism over substance. They are still illegal, you just have to get government permission.

Nonsense. It's an entirely different ballpark. To say that guns are illegal because they're restricted is the same as saying that driving a car on the freeway is illegal.

It's not non-sense. All I was asking was for clarification. Thanks for providing it.

That it was an example of me moving the goal-posts was nonsense.

Nice strawman.

Errr... You do realise that it's just an inversion of your own "argument", which I made to show you the absurdity of it?

Interesting. How exactly?

A higher number of rifles per capita, more military training per capita, more experience with wilderness per capita and the fact that the terrain is well suited to irregular warfare.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm not demanding that retard. Im demanding that it has to be 100% effective to justify restricting personal freedom and constitutional rights.

So unless a court of law could be shown to be 100% effective in sentencing only the criminals, it should not be allowed to restrict personal freedom?

And for the record, the "constitutional right to own guns" has absolutely no meaning in a discussion of gun control in general (as opposed to a discussion of gun control in the USA in particular.) There is no constitutional right to own guns in Denmark, ergo the gun-control in Denmark does not restrict any constitutional rights.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
So you don't think either usefullness or danger should be used to determine whether something should be legal. Do you favour legalizing Nukes,? Why? Why not? You cannot refer to either danger or use.

Why can't I refer to danger? And why do you guys always bring up nukes in am attempt to make some absurd point? No matter how you slice it, nukes are not comparable to guns. You might as well compare a kid stomping on an ant bed to Hitler oppressing Jews.

Thanks for admiting you have no evidence.

The onus isn't on me, it never was (regardless, I've already presented evidence (education in your case) concerning the failure of gun control). You're the one saying gun control works. I have yet to see one country with gun control laws that actually succeed in controlling their guns.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The point is, the Police in Denmark do not primarily carry their guns to be able to defend themselves against armed attack. They carry them to be able to stop armed persons.


Keep dancing.

That's no more self defense than a fireman's axe is for fire prevention.

You love false analogies.

Oh, so we're talking about personal self defense now?

We always have been, as the context in which we've been speaking can attest.

Of course, guns are generally not used for personal self defense in Scandinavia, so that rather invalidates your point.

Except by cops...

To say that guns are illegal because they're restricted is the same as saying that driving a car on the freeway is illegal.

Technically, it is. Try driving on the freeway without a license, registration, inspection or a government approved car.

You do realise that it's just an inversion of your own "argument", which I made to show you the absurdity of it?

I realize it was an attempt.

A higher number of rifles per capita, more military training per capita, more experience with wilderness per capita and the fact that the terrain is well suited to irregular warfare.

That's cool.

What kind of terrain exists in your country that lends favor to irregular warfare?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
So unless a court of law could be shown to be 100% effective in sentencing only the criminals, it should not be allowed to restrict personal freedom?


(Forgetting that this is another one of your beloved false analogies) This is an issue I've thought about a lot lately and is the primary reason I changed my position on the death penalty. All I can say is that this is a subject for another thread.

[sackett]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...If you kill with a knife:
You can't do it from a distance, unless you are a skilled knife-thrower....

Even then you can't. A thrown knife is a poor weapon in any circumstances. Take it from Member # 69, American Knife Throwers Alliance.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by sackett
Even then you can't. A thrown knife is a poor weapon in any circumstances. Take it from Member # 69, American Knife Throwers Alliance.

I know. You need to rotate it, and hit the right spot at the right time. With guns, it's merely a question of buying a big enough caliber - that'll do the trick.

There's a reason why the machine gun was invented: To cut down on the time needed to educate soldiers to become marksmen. With a Kalashikov, you just point and pull the trigger.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Why can't I refer to danger?
Becaus eyou said it was irrelevant. Now answer the question
And why do you guys always bring up nukes in am attempt to make some absurd point?
Because I want to see if you apply your "logic" consistently in which case you're a nutcase, or if you don't in which case you're a hypocrite.

The onus isn't on me, it never was
You said you had evidence, it's perfectly reasonable to expect you to present it.

(regardless, I've already presented evidence (education in your case) concerning the failure of gun control).
Where?
You're the one saying gun control works. I have yet to see one country with gun control laws that actually succeed in controlling their guns.
That's because you define "work" in such a way that practically nothing works. At least when you don't want to admit it works. You obviously apply a different standard when your ideological bias dictates that something is good.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Keep dancing.

Who is dancing? Police do not carry guns for self defence - they carry them as a tool to do their job.

You love false analogies.

And you love calling something a false analogy without explaning what you consider to be the qualitative difference that makes the analogy false.

We always have been, as the context in which we've been speaking can attest.

The point is that the US government prevents its citizens from using anti-personell mines to defend themselves with. Why shouldn't I be allowed to booby-trap my windows with high-explosives if I feel that is the best way to defend myself against armed burglars?

(Guns were of course not initally designed for self defense either, but as weapons of war and tools of hunting.)


Except by cops...

Who don't use them for self defense.

Technically, it is. Try driving on the freeway without a license, registration, inspection or a government approved car.

No, it isn't, not even technically. Driving on the freeway without a license is illegal, but that's a much more narrow definition than just driving on the freeway, and anybody who said that "Driving is illegal in the USA" would clearly be wrong. Just as you are wrong when you say that guns are illegal in Denmark.

I realize it was an attempt.

Very good.


That's cool.

What kind of terrain exists in your country that lends favor to irregular warfare?

Just about all of them, except jungle.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Becaus eyou said it was irrelevant.


No I didn't liar. I said it was largely (read: generally) irrellevant because danger has become a subjective construct.

Because I want to see if you apply your "logic" consistently in which case you're a nutcase.

It's a false analogy.

Speaking of hypocrisy applying logic inconstistently, do you now support comprehensive gun education as well as comprehensive sex education?

You said you had evidence, it's perfectly reasonable to expect you to present it.

Look at my other posts directed to other people, you'll see it.

Where?

See above.

That's because you define "work" in such a way that practically nothing works.

Yeah silly me, I actually think gun control should accomplish the things it was designed to do, ya know, like, controlling guns.

You obviously apply a different standard when your ideological bias dictates that something is good.

That's a lie.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Leif Roar

And you love calling something a false analogy without explaning what you consider to be the qualitative difference that makes the analogy false.
It doesn't reach a conclusion that Tony agrees with.

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The point is that the US government prevents its citizens from using anti-personell mines to defend themselves with. Why shouldn't I be allowed to booby-trap my windows with high-explosives if I feel that is the best way to defend myself against armed burglars?
Because Tony doesn't think so.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Who is dancing?

You are. (see below)

Police do not carry guns for self defence - they carry them as a tool to do their job.

Bwaahahahahahahhaha. I don't think any statement epitomizes the word "spin" more than this.

And you love calling something a false analogy without explaning what you consider to be the qualitative difference that makes the analogy false.

I have confidence that other observers will know what I'm talking about.

The point is that the US government prevents its citizens from using anti-personell mines to defend themselves with.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't if the US was being invaded by a hostile threat. Like I said, MINES ARE WEAPONS OF WAR.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to booby-trap my windows with high-explosives if I feel that is the best way to defend myself against armed burglars?

Now we're finally getting somewhere. You should be able to booby trap your house. High explosives? I guess, as long as it doesn't pose a danger to your neighbors or their property.

(Guns were of course not initally designed for self defense either, but as weapons of war and tools of hunting.)

Can you provide evidence of this?

Who don't use them for self defense.

If you actually believe this, you’ve got to be one of the dumbest posters on this forum.

If I attack a cop in Denmark, he'll just drop his gun and cower in fear? What if I point a gun at him? Will he just let me do what I want? What if I shoot at him? Will he run away and just allow me to continue with me carnage?

No, it isn't, not even technically. Driving on the freeway without a license is illegal, but that's a much more narrow definition than just driving on the freeway, and anybody who said that "Driving is illegal in the USA" would clearly be wrong. Just as you are wrong when you say that guns are illegal in Denmark.

Ok, what's the effective and practical difference between illegal and heavily restricted?

Just about all of them, except jungle.

Then I don't see how it's any different than the US, we have just about every type of terrain, plus jungle.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kerberos
It doesn't reach a conclusion that Tony agrees with.

...

Because Tony doesn't think so.

And, since Tony has spoken, everybody else is wrong.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And, since Tony has spoken, everybody else is wrong.

It's about time you pussies saw the light. :D ;) :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
It's about time you pussies saw the light. :D ;) :p

You consider this a joke?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
You are. (see below)

Bwaahahahahahahhaha. I don't think any statement epitomizes the word "spin" more than this.

*shrugs* I disagree completly, so it would appear we're at loggerheads over this issue.


I have confidence that other observers will know what I'm talking about.

Well, I don't, so would you for the sake of courtesy explain it to me?

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't if the US was being invaded by a hostile threat. Like I said, MINES ARE WEAPONS OF WAR.

Why does that matter? I can certainly imagine uses of mines for personal defense, and after all, firearms were once exclusively weapons of war as well.

Now we're finally getting somewhere. You should be able to booby trap your house. High explosives? I guess, as long as it doesn't pose a danger to your neighbor's or their property.

So, since I can booby-trap my house can I also plant mines on my lawn?

Can you provide evidence of this?

Read any history text on the development of firearms. The first firearms (even when we ignore cannons, which are besides the issue) were simply too bulky and awkward to use wield to be used for self-defense.

If you actually believe this, you’ve got to be one of the dumbest posters on this forum.

If I attack a cop in Denmark, he'll just drop his gun and cower in fear? What if I point a gun at him? Will he just let me do what I want? What if I shoot at him? Will he run away and just allow me to continue with me carnage?

If you attack a lumberjack, they're going to hit you with their axe. That doesn't mean that lumberjacks carry axes for self defense.

Ok, what's the effective and practical difference between illegal and heavily restricted?

You can get something that's heavily restricted legally, while you can not get something that's illegal legally.

Then I don't see how it's any different than the US, we have just about every type of terrain, plus jungle.

That's because there's pretty much all of Norway and Sweden has terrain that's appropriate for irregular warfare; whereas there are many important areas in the USA where the terrain is not appropriate for irregular warfare.

Anyway, I'm heading home to my parents for Christmas tomorrow, and since I need to pack and clean the apartment, I'll be signing off this discussion (and all the others I've posted to lately.) Have a good Christmas everybody.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You consider this a joke?

No, I was being dead serious. In fact, that statement was said with more sobriety and seriousness than ANY statement I've made in my whole life.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
No, I was being dead serious. In fact, that statement was said with more sobriety and seriousness than ANY statement I've made in my whole life.

Then, you are a self-deluded fool.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I disagree completly, so it would appear we're at loggerheads over this issue.


Your disagreement isn't supported by reality.

Well, I don't, so would you for the sake of courtesy explain it to me?

Which one?

Why does that matter?

Why do you think? For once, try answering your own stupid questions.

So, since I can booby-trap my house can I also plant mines on my lawn?

I don't know, can you?

Read any history text on the development of firearms. The first firearms (even when we ignore cannons, which are besides the issue) were simply too bulky and awkward to use wield to be used for self-defense.

Well, then that's more a function of practicality than it anything else.

If you attack a lumberjack, they're going to hit you with their axe. That doesn't mean that lumberjacks carry axes for self defense.

Another false analogy. A lumberjack, as a normal function of his job, doesn't put himself in harm's way. The ability to use the ax as a means for personal defense is a byproduct of the function of his job. A cop puts himself in harm's way constantly. He requires a means to defend himself as a function of his job, that's where the gun comes in.

You can get something that's heavily restricted legally, while you can not get something that's illegal legally.

Ok.

Anyway, I'm heading home to my parents for Christmas tomorrow, and since I need to pack and clean the apartment, I'll be signing off this discussion (and all the others I've posted to lately.) Have a good Christmas everybody.

Merry christmas.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then, you are a self-deluded fool.

Wait a second, you thought I was actually being serious?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
Wait a second, you thought I was actually being serious?

If you tell me that you are "dead serious", sure.

Does that mean that we should not pay any attention to anything you say? If not, please state when we should.

[Ausmerican]

While I hate to nit pick semantics Claus you thread was on the subject of knives or guns being the more DANGEROUS not deadly.

As far as deadly goes, well, a gun can kill you & a knife can kill you. There are no real different degrees of dead. So that’s a draw. The fact that guns account for more murders than knives is a matter of common sense. Say you have the particular mindset that makes you decide to murder someone. You own a knife and you own a gun. Common sense says you use the gun since, as well as being less of a risk for you it’s a lot bloody easier from a physical standpoint, one fingers worth of work rather than a whole arms worth. Also knives don't run out of ammo.

But to get back to the point used it the thread title, that of dangerousness, I think you are making an error. I would hazard that most if not all of the people on this board have at some time or another accidentally cut themselves while using a knife while very few, if any at all, have accidentally shot themselves while using a gun. Of course most of these knife accidents were trivial and even more serious ones are not reported as weapon injuries however, by the numbers, knives win as the more dangerous if not the more deadly.
:D

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you tell me that you are "dead serious", sure.

Does that mean that we should not pay any attention to anything you say?

It means you should stop being a little bitch, grow a sack, and lighten up. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
It means you should stop being a little bitch, grow a sack, and lighten up. :)

So, it means that we should not pay any attention to what you say.

OK.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, it means that we should not pay any attention to what you say.

OK.

I see you've elected to be a little bitch. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Ausmerican

But to get back to the point used it the thread title, that of dangerousness, I think you are making an error. I would hazard that most if not all of the people on this board have at some time or another accidentally cut themselves while using a knife while very few, if any at all, have accidentally shot themselves while using a gun. Of course most of these knife accidents were trivial and even more serious ones are not reported as weapon injuries however, by the numbers, knives win as the more dangerous if not the more deadly.
:D
Dangerous doesn't mean more incidents, it most definetly includes the seriousness of the incident, I'ts far more dangerous to be shot once through the chest than to be cut ten times in the finger.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Dangerous doesn't mean more incidents...

Does that mean that the US, with its high number of gun related incidents, is just as safe as Denmark, with its low number of gun incidents?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's a matter of how many dead people from criminal activity a society is prepared to accept. Lives are clearly considered worth less in the US than elsewhere.

What I'm trying to understand is this - If the life of the innocent person is saved at the expense of the three lives of the attackers, in your mind, is this a net loss? Would you argue that it would be better to have the one innocent person dead rather than the three attackers? As far as lives being considered worth less in the US I think that is malarky. I would certainly argue that the lives of innocent people, people who respect the rights and property and lives others and do not seek to harm them are worth more than the lives of those who are not so inclined.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony
Does that mean that the US, with its high number of gun related incidents, is just as safe as Denmark, with its low number of gun incidents?
It means that US with it's higher number of serious incidents like fatal ones, is more dangerous than Denmark with it's lower number of serious incidents. You're really fond of quoting out of context aren't you?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by billydkid
What I'm trying to understand is this - If the life of the innocent person is saved at the expense of the three lives of the attackers, in your mind, is this a net loss? Would you argue that it would be better to have the one innocent person dead rather than the three attackers? As far as lives being considered worth less in the US I think that is malarky. I would certainly argue that the lives of innocent people, people who respect the rights and property and lives others and do not seek to harm them are worth more than the lives of those who are not so inclined.
Sure, but the Danish homicide rate is far lower than the American one, so more innocent people are killed in the US, it's not neccecarilly because of guns, at least not whollt so, but when all's said and done your chance as an innocent person of getting murdered, is higher in the US than is Denmark. If 90% of your homicide rate was potential murderes and would be rapists then, it would be different, but I suspect justifiable homicides is listed in a different statistic, and is far lower than that.