Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979261 - 10/04/03 04:09 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

On second thought, after looking at 2000's medal winners in shooting, I see no Americans. I also, see a lot of winners from countries with more strict gun control laws than America.

Guess my Olympic dreams are shattered.

Perhaps Americans don't need our handguns after all. Maybe then, we'll start winning.

Washington Post Oct 2000
Shooting
Men?s air pistol
Gold: Franck Dumoulin, France
Silver: Wang Yifu, China
Bronze: Igor Basinsky, Belarus

Men?s free pistol
Gold: Tanyu Kiriakov, Bulgaria
Silver: Igor Basinsky, Belarus
Bronze: Martin Tenk, Czech Republic

Men?s rapid fire pistol
Gold: Serguei Alifirenko, Russia
Silver: Michel Ansermet, Switzerland
Bronze: Iulian Raicea, Romania

Men?s trap
Gold: Michael Diamond, Australia
Silver: Ian Peel, Britain
Bronze: Giovanni Pellielo, Italy

Men?s double trap
Gold: Richard Faulds, Britain
Silver: Russell Mark, Australia
Bronze: Fehaid Al Deehani, Kuwait

Men?s air rifle
Gold: Cai Yalin, China
Silver: Artem Khadjibekov, Russia
Bronze: Evgueni Aleinikov, Russia

Men?s running target
Gold: Yang Ling, China
Silver: Oleg Moldovan, Moldova
Bronze: Niu Zhiyuan, China

Men?s rifle prone
Gold: Jonas Edman, Sweden
Silver: Torben Grimmel, Denmark
Bronze: Sergei Martynov, Belarus

Men?s rifle three-position
Gold: Rajmond Debevec, Slovenia
Silver: Juha Hirvi, Finland
Bronze: Harald Stenvaag, Norway

Here's the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/olympics/daily/oct00/01/list2.htm


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979262 - 10/04/03 04:10 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

when it is said that a gun was used for self-defense, it is meant that the gun was essential and primary for self-defense. it is meant that without the gun, self-defense would have been much more difficult or impossible.

if the gun isn't used in self-defense, it's not used in self-defense.

citing examples of possible exceptions where a gun was used, but not essential, to self-defense is flawed. your cocaine reference is an example of this.

the "victim" was not forcefully threatened, and so a gun was unnessessary for self-defense. the gun was not used in self-defense. it was merely waived around to unnecessarily frighten someone.

as far as "statutory rape"... the courts have decided that until a certain age, a person is unable to properly consent to sexual activities with someone a certain age older than them. 'statutory rape' is thus so-named because it is considered by the courts to be a non-consensual sexual act. the courts have decided that sex with a minor is actually an initiation of force. if you agree with this position, then your farmer example is an example of a gun being used to prevent a violent crime. if you don't agree with it, then in your view statutory rape is neither forceful nor a 'crime' in the true sense.

to use force in self-defense, you must be threatened by force. it really is that simple. self-defensive use of force means defense from force.

the fact that your examples are so poor certainly bears testament to this.

you're really grasping at straws. is there are no better way to refute the studies we're talking about?

Now I know handguns are good for killing

in 98% of cases, merely brandishing a firearm is enough to dissuade a would-be attacker. it is a rare instance for someone to be compelled to take the life of another person in self-defense.... when it does happen, it is justified. do you believe that it is never justifiable to kill another person?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979273 - 10/04/03 04:16 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I think it is unjustified to shoot first and ask questions later.

I've had 100% success without a gun (except for my run in with the flying terrorists!).

I can think of no time in my life where I wished I had a gun for protection.

I can think of no time in my life where I needed a gun for protection.

As an unarmed citizen, I just avoid fights. It works. I'm living proof.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979279 - 10/04/03 04:17 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

stop for a moment. step back from this debate and the position you've tied yourself to. open your mind.

try looking at this from a fresh perspective, untainted by formerly acquired notions and ideas.

the studies are entirely valid. you are refuting them with ridiculous arguments for no other reason than that you personally do not wish to believe them.

can't you see that?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979283 - 10/04/03 04:18 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

there are many other citizens who are living proof that guns do work in self-defense.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979284 - 10/04/03 04:18 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Don't Libretarians believe the GOVERNMENT's only purpose is to protect its citizens?

Why not let the military, police and criminals use the handguns?

We can stick with our shotguns, rifles and pellet guns. Guns that can catch us a dinner!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979304 - 10/04/03 04:28 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

i'd really like to repeat:

there is an attitude very common amongst gun ban-ers.

it is:

guns are weapons. they are used to kill people. therefore, guns are bad. therefore, we should ban them.

to date, i have yet to find that the line of reasoning extends any further than that.

i have yet to hear any gun ban-er who can hold his own in a debate on the subject. not once has the position held up to logical scrutiny. not once.

on many issues, there are valid points on both sides. usually, disagreement is born of different values, not different perceptions or different levels of ignorance.

on the gun debate, i have found this not to be the case. the values we are arguing for are not controversial. it is pretty universal that we all wish to see a reduction in violent crime. we all think safety from crime is a good thing. where we differ is our opinion on how this can be best acheived.

it is not values the cause our differences in this debate, but levels of awareness... extent of knowledge.

i have consistantly found gun ban-ers to be extremely ill-informed about the facts of gun policy.... full of false notions and ideas which are rarely gracefully abandoned.

while i can respect positions born of different values, i cannot respect an arguement born out of ignorance and defended out of necessity of ego.

i am tired of debating this. i only hope that at least some people reading this discussion are a little better informed after reading the arguments made.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979305 - 10/04/03 04:30 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

yes, this is the only rightful purpose of government.

the government cannot be everywhere. individuals have a right to defend themselves from an initiation of force.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979311 - 10/04/03 04:32 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Your link about guns and self defense is good but it lists a range of 100,000 - 2.5 million (Not a very solid study if you ask me)... not 800,000 like you have repeatedly stated. Yes, 800,000 is the lowest number listed in this study but ABC news uses 100,000 to 2.5 million. Since they are neutral, I'll use their stats.

Check the links that are on that page. Several of them cast quite a bit of doubt on your study. I did read it with an open mind.

I think we should have a right to bear arms. I just see handguns as more harm than good. I feel the same about automatic weapons.

Guns made to kill PEOPLE and sold to CIVILIANS are no longer needed in America. The Wild West was won.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979323 - 10/04/03 04:39 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

think what you'd like. the facts are out there and it does not appear that your mind is open to change on this.

your last post contained at least one fallacious argment and one glaringly inaccurate statement, but i suppose it will only be a waste of my time to point them out.

fortunately, our constitution still protects the right for peaceful citizens to keep and bear arms. though respect for the 2nd ammendment comes and goes in our legislative bodies, i have a feeling that the general right to own weapons will not be stripped away any time soon. for this i am glad. should the day come when the right is stripped away, i will not surrender my weapons, and neither will any other american who loves freedom more than he does his government.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979331 - 10/04/03 04:43 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Mushmaster said: guns are weapons. they are used to kill people. therefore, guns are bad. therefore, we should ban them.

to date, i have yet to find that the line of reasoning extends any further than that.
_____

To some, this is all the reasoning needed.

I only feel this way about handguns and automatic weapons. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you stop lumping me with EVERYBODY else.

I think people should be allowed to own hunting weapons. People should be allowed to protect themselves. A shotgun works well as a preventative weapon. Just pump a shotgun and a tresspasser will run. They won't even need to see it.

I live in an urban environment. It is very hard to get a concealed weapon liscence in this city. This is because handguns are so easily hidden. There is no need for a handgun in a city... unless you are a criminal or afraid of criminals.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979387 - 10/04/03 05:06 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

give me one example of a non-violent crime that could be thwarted by the victim drawing a gun.



Freeze! Put down the joint and no one gets hurt.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979407 - 10/04/03 05:18 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

*Mushmaster said: your last post contained at least one fallacious argment and one glaringly inaccurate statement, but i suppose it will only be a waste of my time to point them out.
_______
Then I will.

108,000 sorry 108,000 is the low estimate not 100,000 (that covers my glarringly inaccurate statement)

and...

I didn't fully express my logic for using ABC's numbers instead of Mushmaster's and this may have made the ABC study sound like it contained different info than it actually did.

Alow me to explain.

Mushmaster, as you get to know me, you'll learn I do my research. If I don't write my logic out for you to read every time, it is simply because I prefer to make points rather than explain them. I'm not the fastest typist.

ABC News used more than one study (hence neutral) to generate their number. Phillip Cook's study and Gary Kleck's. I didn't make this clear in my earlier post (I wanted to inspire mushmaster to re-read his link with an open mind. He asked me to do it.)

"Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between."

"Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist"

From what I've seen, Cook's argument (As embraced by ABC news, is a more neutral argument. Kleck sounds a little biased in his arguments. I'm not saying his arguments aren't sound, I'm just saying I prefer to use the more neutral estimates provided by Cook.

From what I've seen (I don't know him well), Cook seems to be more independant simply because I can't tell weather he is pro or anti gun by reading his findings.

Here's an excerpt from the ABC link:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_damage.html

"Believe It or Not
Take, for example, the question of how often guns are used for self-defense.
Gun control advocates say firearms are used 108,000 times a year for self-defense.
Gun control opponents say the figure is as high as 2.5 million times a year.
Whom do you believe?
The 108,000 figure comes from the Justice Department?s National Crime Victimization Survey, the nation?s most comprehensive survey of victims. But gun control opponents discount the number, arguing that many people who used guns to protect themselves successfully don?t consider themselves victims and thus are not counted by the study.
They prefer the 2.5 million estimate from Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who surveyed 5,000 households and examined other studies. Gun control advocates reject Kleck?s conclusions because, they say, his sample size was too small to be accurate."

There, that should cover my fallacious argument.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979440 - 10/04/03 05:41 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Dr. Kleck's Answer:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979442 - 10/04/03 05:43 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

the fallacy was implying the the statistics were not valid because they were not entirely consistant. there's even a name for this fallacy but i haven't the time to dig it up.

the inaccurate statement was claiming ABC news to be neutral when it's commonly accepted that the print media is liberally biased, especially when it comes to gun control.

there are numerous problems with the survey arriving at the 108,000, some of which are described by Dr. Kleck's response in the above post.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979444 - 10/04/03 05:45 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I think people should be allowed to own hunting weapons. People should be allowed to protect themselves. A shotgun works well as a preventative weapon. Just pump a shotgun and a tresspasser will run. They won't even need to see it.

i'm glad you recognize a person's right to defend themself while in their home. i'm not entirely certain why you would deny them this right once they step out the door.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979456 - 10/04/03 05:56 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I'm against most gun control measures, but just to play devil's advocate, I'll use some of Thomas Hobbes's philosophy. All human beings are more or less equal in their ability to kill another human being. With the exception of the sick and elderly, we pretty much all have that ability. So if we're all equal in this aspect, how do we maintain order in society? The answer: we hand over the right to kill to one person or group(the government) in exchange for protection from others who would wish to kill us. All government's power is based on the fact that they can kill you. Therefore, giving other people the ability to kill would cause chaos and disorder.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979475 - 10/04/03 06:08 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

A person's home is private property.

City streets are public property.

I don't want guns at public gatherings. I don't want them in Public schools. I don't want them on public transportation.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,478
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979481 - 10/04/03 06:10 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Well said silversoul7 but did you have to play devil's advocate?

Dude!

That's MY job!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979521 - 10/04/03 06:37 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

hobbes' flaw was that we do not establish rightful government by handing over authority to anyone... we make a pact amongst ourselves. we do not have the authority to initiate force against other individuals, and so we cannot grant this right to anyone else. a good government has no special rights above the citizens it exists to protect, at least not any right to initiate force. it only has obligations.

the role of government is to defend individuals from force, but it is not all-powerful and it cannot be everywhere at all times. there is also no guarantee that it will not become corrupted and itself become an initiator of force. therefore, the existance of government does not eliminate the need for citizens to provide for their own self-defense in emergency situations, much less the right.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The False Promise of Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,186 23 04/16/03 06:53 PM
by pattern
* 40 Reasons For Gun Control
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 5,337 31 10/08/13 03:05 AM
by Therian
* Whither Gun Control? luvdemshrooms 1,294 12 05/23/04 08:23 AM
by Xlea321
* Test your knowledge of gun control:
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 4,921 45 09/14/01 07:14 PM
by wingnutx
* Gun Control, does it work?
( 1 2 3 all )
Granola 2,999 46 12/25/03 06:50 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* The most thoughtful gun-control position I've seen yet... retread 790 5 09/01/04 11:49 PM
by retread
* Gun control part #666 PjS 1,257 7 12/30/01 10:26 PM
by nugsarenice
* Gun Lock Giveaways - Effective Gun Control enimatpyrt 777 10 12/30/03 09:15 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
13,102 topic views. 5 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.082 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.