Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Evolution vs Creationism video


Domarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

What "fact"? Where is the evidence that gun control is "working"? There is a vast number of possible reasons why other countries do not have the same level of gun violence that the US has, totally unrelated to the presence or absence of gun laws.

 

(Note that in general I am in favour of gun control, but you're making a huge cum hoc fallacy there).

Well I just thought the absence of actual guns to perform any gun violence with, would be the only explanation necessary... but maybe I'm jumping to conclusions :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I just thought the absence of actual guns to perform any gun violence with, would be the only explanation necessary... but maybe I'm jumping to conclusions :)

 

Yes you are -- you are jumping to the conclusion that gun control laws will result in an absence of guns. This is by no means proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let's say a big reduction then. Nothing will ever get rid of them completely, but I'm sure you're not going to use an argument such as 'if you can't get rid of all of them, then there's no point in even trying to do anything about it at all'.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many more factors in the equation than just gun control itself. What about population figures for instance? Compare the population density and economic status in Philly ghettos versus other places. Philadelphia (a city!) has almost 10% of the population of all of Australia, and ranges in economic status from business highrise suits down to welfare breeders. That said,

 

The most violent thing I've ever seen is a street fist-fight. The only guns I've ever seen were my dad's hunting rifles and police with their pistols on their hips and I've never once seen them out of their holsters.

Same here, in NJ, USA. Minus the hunting rifles, that is. And right next door to Philadelphia, in fact. There's some misconception that you see guns everywhere, walking down the street, at the market, everyone's got one in their coat, etc. The only gun I've ever seen in person was a friend's father's civil war antique hanging in a glass case on the wall in the basement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you say that, when gun control is already working so well in other countries? This is like, the third or fourth time you've blatantly ignored that fact, and I fully expect you to do it again.

 

The most violent thing I've ever seen is a street fist-fight. The only guns I've ever seen were my dad's hunting rifles and police with their pistols on their hips and I've never once seen them out of their holsters.

 

That's a random Australian person's view. Compare that to the experiences of the people from the US in this thread.

I'm an American. Though I'm for second amendment rights, I don't own a gun, nor do I intend to. Where I live, I feel pretty safe; I've never been mugged or personally seen anything violent. The only gunshots I've occasionally heard were target-practice (I live out in the boondocks) and the only real guns I've seen were holstered on police. Not all of America is like Philadelphia.

 

In truth, much of the violence I've heard about is by police, not citizens. Not so long ago, the Portland police shot a black man to death for forgetting to use a turn signal. Forget trying to get guns out of the hands of individuals... if you really want to decrease gun violence, get them out of the hands of police! (that last sentence isn't intended to be taken entirely seriously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is like, the third or fourth time you've blatantly ignored that fact, and I fully expect you to do it again.

 

It's a fact that in Europe the banning of guns is working well. Better?

 

No. Of course not. You want me to assume that if it works in your neck of the woods that it will work here. But the truth of the matter is that it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

 

That's a random Australian person's view. Compare that to the experiences of the people from the US in this thread.

 

Don't you mean compare your experience to that of one person from Philly? I mean I qualify as a random person from the US and my firsthand experience isn't any different from yours.

 

Well let's say a big reduction then. Nothing will ever get rid of them completely, but I'm sure you're not going to use an argument such as 'if you can't get rid of all of them, then there's no point in even trying to do anything about it at all'.

 

That's how you see my argument. IMHO it's more like, "ban guns so that law abiding people don't have access to them while criminals are unaffected."

 

Here in the US, a guy who's been convicted of a crime can't obtain a gun through legal channels anyway so it's no more difficult for him with a ban than it is without one. So unless your goal is to stop people who aren't a threat or haven't yet proven themselves to be a threat, it accomplishes nothing.

 

You know what would sell me on a gun ban? I want to know why it works. Why don't criminals in Europe use guns? Or do they use guns and we just haven't addressed that yet? Is there no black market? Is it harder for weapons to cross borders because most countries in the region have gun bans in place? Wouldn't that mean a gun ban here in the US would only be effective if Canada and Mexico followed suit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you are -- you are jumping to the conclusion that gun control laws will result in an absence of guns. This is by no means proven.

Of course I don't mean complete and absolute absense. But if there are less guns floating around, then there are less of them to kill people with. It doesn't get simpler.

 

Yes, there are many more factors in the equation than just gun control itself. What about population figures for instance?

Strange that it has to be kept on an angelfire site, but apparently they have to mirror these things at free locations or something. Anyway, the year 2000 murder rates for various nations (in descending order): http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#murd

 

The US. has 5.64 deaths per 100,000 people vs. 1.81 per 100,000 for Australia. The U.S. Murder rate is 3.1 times higher than Australia, or putting it another way, Australia has only 1/3rd the murders of the U.S.

 

Though some amount of the US toll is gang-related, and Australia doesn't have comparible gang problems in Australia. http://www.streetgangs.com/homicides/lachomichart.html. But they are still using easily obtained guns as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's a fact that in Europe the banning of guns is working well. Better?

 

No. Of course not. You want me to assume that if it works in your neck of the woods that it will work here. But the truth of the matter is that it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

I'm willing to conceed the gun situation in the US is so far out of control that making immediate laws would cause anarchy or something - but any initial steps would have to ultimately lead to gun bans. We have more than one country were this seems to be working, so it's fair to assume it might be a good idea.

 

Don't you mean compare your experience to that of one person from Philly? I mean I qualify as a random person from the US and my firsthand experience isn't any different from yours.
I'm glad people are paying enough attention to pick me up on this. It's just that the impression I get is that most people in the US at least know someone who's at least seen some sort of gun violence - depending on where they live of course.

 

So unless your goal is to stop people who aren't a threat or haven't yet proven themselves to be a threat, it accomplishes nothing.
Hey, if it works... come on - do you think it's worth convicting the VT shooter now?

 

You know what would sell me on a gun ban? I want to know why it works. Why don't criminals in Europe use guns? Or do they use guns and we just haven't addressed that yet? Is there no black market? Is it harder for weapons to cross borders because most countries in the region have gun bans in place? Wouldn't that mean a gun ban here in the US would only be effective if Canada and Mexico followed suit?
We don't have the border issue because the laws are pretty much the same all over the country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Of course not. You want me to assume that if it works in your neck of the woods that it will work here.

 

IMO this is a typcial politician retort. We hear the same from our politician in many cases, but of course only if it suits them. Austrian goverment is usually very keen to do the same as the german. Doesn't matter how stupid it is, but if the german do it, we also have to do it. Of course this is done when it suits them. And the rationalization for it is "The german did it as well." BUT if it does NOT suit them for one reason or the other, we suddenly hear "You can't really compare this, because germany is a TOTALLY different country." Sorry that I don't buy this kind of reasoning.

 

That's how you see my argument. IMHO it's more like, "ban guns so that law abiding people don't have access to them while criminals are unaffected."

 

It's not black and white. Criminals only become criminals when they do something criminal. If you raise the bar, less people will be criminals, because it also takes some effort, not everybody is willing to exert it. Of course you wont affect the hardcore criminals, but you can affect a lot of people which are on the border, which already reduces the total amount of criminals. I mean, personally I find it quite funny, I saw a movie, which was filmed after an actual event called "45 minutes". It was about a bank robbery, where the robbers, used AK-47 and bullet proof vests. They were finally shot down after about 45 minutes of gunfight (hence the name of the movie). The reaction of the politicans was not to try and reduce the danger coming from weapons. No! Insread they equipped the police with more heavy weapons. Makes totall sense. LOL. Next time, if a criminal uses nuclear power, I guess that police will also equipped with nukes just so they can say they have the same fire power and don't have to feel insecure.

 

Here in the US, a guy who's been convicted of a crime can't obtain a gun through legal channels anyway so it's no more difficult for him with a ban than it is without one.

 

That's quite a big fallacy. After all, if his fellows, which are NOT convicted, can acquire guns easily, it is for him as easily as for them.

 

So unless your goal is to stop people who aren't a threat or haven't yet proven themselves to be a threat, it accomplishes nothing.

 

See above.

 

You know what would sell me on a gun ban? I want to know why it works. Why don't criminals in Europe use guns?

 

Because violence is not as cherished as in the US I would say. And of course, because the balance between extreme poverty and average is not as extreme as in the US and education is generally higher. But our politicians are working on that to "improve" the situation towards the US. As long as this Bushwhore Merkel and her braindead followers (like Schäuble) are in power it will become worse. Not that the SPD is any much better though. :(

 

Or do they use guns and we just haven't addressed that yet? Is there no black market?

 

Of course they have guns, and there is a black market. But it's not a problem, because apparently almost nobody seems to use it. If somebody is bent on bank robbery he will acquire a gun. Not as easy in the US but it is definitely possible. When I still lived in Vienna, I also knew where I would have to go if I wanted one. I guess if you live in a town, you probably know such things. But since guns are outlawed, you are already taking a risk just with buying it, and in most cases this is not even warranted.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in the US, a guy who's been convicted of a crime can't obtain a gun through legal channels anyway so it's no more difficult for him with a ban than it is without one. So unless your goal is to stop people who aren't a threat or haven't yet proven themselves to be a threat, it accomplishes nothing.

 

You know what would sell me on a gun ban? I want to know why it works. Why don't criminals in Europe use guns? Or do they use guns and we just haven't addressed that yet? Is there no black market?

 

Of course some of them use guns, but I don't know how the fact that some criminals use guns is an argument for giving free reign to an entire population to use them as well.

That's the crazy sort of argument which will only end in the sort of gun death and injury rates that you have in the US.

Some criminals have guns in the UK, yes, but they exceptionally rarely actually use them on people. They are used as a threat rather than a weapon.

Our patrolling policemen don't carry guns either of course, so they are not a threat, and it's almost unheard of for them to be shot.

That would all change if they suspected the public of having their own guns to fight back with, and saw the police with guns on their hips. It wouldn't stop them from commiting their crimes or using their own guns, but it would give them a trigger-happy 'shoot first, ask questions later' policy which they currently don't have, since they know the public is not a threat.

And further, the vast majority of criminals who currently dont use guns, will start using them, they'll have no choice, since they'll need to protect themselves from the gun-wielding public, and it simply becomes normal in a gun culture like America to carry a gun, it's not a tough decision for a criminal to make.

So what you end up with is more criminals with guns, and far more likely to use them.

In short, giving everyone access to guns simply inflames and exacerbates the situation, it does nothing to help it.

 

And what do criminals want anyway?

Money and possessions to sell, that's all, they don't want to kill you, so you don't need a gun to protect yourself from them. What you mean is you want a gun to protect your wallet, and anyone who would get into a gunfight with a criminal over the meagre contents of his wallet, deserves to be shot.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO it's more like, "ban guns so that law abiding people don't have access to them while criminals are unaffected."

 

Every criminal was first a 'law abiding person'.

Wouldn't that mean a gun ban here in the US would only be effective if Canada and Mexico followed suit?

 

Canada already has a gun ban--it certainly isn't as effective as it could be if we didn't have US guns flooding illegally across the border--but it still keeps them out of most people's hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US. has 5.64 deaths per 100,000 people vs. 1.81 per 100,000 for Australia. The U.S. Murder rate is 3.1 times higher than Australia, or putting it another way, Australia has only 1/3rd the murders of the U.S.

But also around 1/15 the population. More to the point, population density. We can't just compare numbers to numbers without considering what's behind the numbers. In Philly's case, a city/county area only 135 square miles in size has almost 1/10 the population of all of Australia. A quick trip to wikipedia to check entries for Philadelphia and Sydney shows that Philly has more than ten times the population density of Australia's most heavily populated city. Mix in rampant poverty, gang activity, and guns, and it's a wonder they're not all dead already in the city of brotherly love.

 

It's just a guess, but based on the nightly news, I'd say the majority of killings in Philly are certainly gang and/or drug related. I recall being a teenager with a group of friends walking back to the cars on South Street (nods to Maximius) after a concert, and being warned that "I know y'all ain't walkin on my sidewalk" by one of a group of friendly locals. If we were on 'his sidewalk' before the warning (I don't remember), we certainly weren't for long. That's something, isn't it? Filthy trash wolfpack punks have to intimidate a bunch of skinny longhaired teenage white boys and their girlfriends. I think I'll stop myself there before I say something nasty.

 

By contrast to that shithole, when I go for a drive in the Pennsylvania mountain$ (same state, very different area), and population density drops down to about 10-20 people per square mile, there isn't much murder going on there. It's like needing critical mass for a nuclear reaction (that or a whole lot of worthless scum).

 

To be honest, I'm actually surprised the Australian figure is that high, considering these statistics. Then again there's also the criminal ancestory to consider.

 

(OMFG IT'S A JOKE! Trying to lighten the mood. :laugh:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again there's also the criminal ancestory to consider.

Funny how people always point out that convicts were sent to Australia, but somehow fail to mention that the US had its fair share of convicts sent over as well.

 

A particular use of the term in the English-speaking world is to refer to the huge numbers of petty criminals who clogged British gaols in the 18th and early 19th century. Initially many were sent to the American colonies as cheap labour

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict

 

Take that, America! Land of the free my left buttock. :P

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about having guns so we can protect ourselves. I mean honestly, I don't even own a gun. I personally don't see what practical use there is in having one. But I don't think it's a function of government to dictate what you can and can't spend your money on.

 

If someone wants a gun, they should be permitted to have it. It's the actions that person takes with the gun that should be judged and penalized. I mean if I go out and by a gun tomorrow and I never use it, am I hurting anyone?

 

Sure, I'll acknowledge a ban for what positive effects it has. Gun related deaths do go down. You have the statistics to back that up. But when you stop comparing numbers and think about the big picture, the drama caused by guns just spills out into other areas.

 

For instance, the average joe who falls behind on his bills decides to off himself instead of robbing a convenience store. Is that a better scenario than him killing a clerk? Yeah, I suppose killing yourself is better than killing an innocent person but the force that drives him exists in both cases.

 

I dunno. I guess my aspirations are too ambitious. I don't think people are born with this innate desire to commit horrible acts. They force themselves to do these things because they are too ignorant to resolve their problems. And through repetitive action they become conditioned to feel nothing or even take pleasure in it.

 

But it's beyond our scope to address that so we end up settling with the lesser of two evils, like banning guns. It's another example of making the world "stupid-proof". Does anyone else find that depressing? It's like the human race is destined to fail because all the dumb asses on this planet are breeding faster than everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I guess my aspirations are too ambitious. I don't think people are born with this innate desire to commit horrible acts. They force themselves to do these things because they are too ignorant to resolve their problems.

 

I think you are contradicting yourself here. I agree that I also don't think that people are born with the innate desire to commit violence. After all we a re a social species, no denying that. But the problems that they try to resolve are not neccessarily made by themselve and some of them are simply to big to address on an individual basis. This is the reason why violence is seen as valid answer. If you have so many problems and you are unable to resolve them properly, then violence CAN be a means to achieve that. And considering the inbalance between poverty and rich in the US, it's no big surprise that this effect is much stronger there, then in middle european countries, where this border is not as extreme. Yet.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course some people are born with the desire to commit violence- and rape and theft and anything that will get them want they want in the quickest an easiest way possible..

All of that has to be bred out in childhood, but total selfishness is our natural state.

Why do you think we've been killing each other en mass since we first evolved?

Diplomacy is the unnatural state, and one that has had to be slowly developed over the millennia.

No small child who hasn't been taught morality will use diplomacy where theft or violence will work faster.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If dimplocmay is so "unnatural" how come that societies gravitate towards it? Mankind IS social by nature, but the sociallity was created with small communities. With large communities like we see in more modern times, the individuallity is lost and this means that it's easier to behave unsocial, because your neighbour is it just by name.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Large scale wars first started when large town and city states developed. Diplomacy developed as a way for weak people or states to buy off more powerful states.

If they are strong and know they can take what they want by force, then diplomacy is useless.

All of the great early nations saw war as a good thing, they relished it, and they didn't do it reluctantly. Right up until the Spanish and English empires, and until slavery was abolished, it was seen as perfectly acceptable and natural law for the strong to take from the weak though force.

That is our natural state, to use aggression against the weak, and we are only forced to use diplomacy against the strong because we have no choice.

 

Of course we have lots of laws telling us not to be bad and commit crimes, but those are not natural laws, they are artificial, because we are smart and realise that having people running around in your own streets raping and murdering does not make for a strong society.

However, the main reason we wanted strong societies was so we could go and rape and steal from and murder other societies.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Large scale wars first started when large town and city states developed. Diplomacy developed as a way for weak people or states to buy off more powerful states.

If they are strong and know they can take what they want by force, then diplomacy is useless.

All of the great early nations saw war as a good thing, they relished it, and they didn't do it reluctantly. Right up until the Spanish and English empires, and until slavery was abolished, it was seen as perfectly acceptable and natural law for the strong to take from the weak though force.

 

I don't know in which universe you are living, but apparently you are not living in the same. Sounds more like a fantasy barabrian universe. You really shouldn't watch all these cheap Schwarzenegger movies. :)

 

That is our natural state, to use aggression against the weak, and we are only forced to use diplomacy against the strong because we have no choice.

 

Apparently you are wrong. Of course there were always raids and such with neighbouring communities, but equally, there were also moves to stabilize relationships with neighbours. I'm sure you also heard in history class, in the few seconds you were apparently not sleeping, that people used to make marriages to secure borders and alliances.

 

Of course we have lots of laws telling us not to be bad and commit crimes, but those are not natural laws, they are artificial,

 

Strange that they are supposed to be artificial. I supposes that apes, and other social communities use artificial laws to regulate their relationsships. Don't know where horses, as an example, write down their laws, but it is funny that they tend to become more agressive when they are sealed up, as opposed to wildlife.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now you think we only become aggressive when we have to live in cities. I suppose that's why the huns were so violent and aggressive, because of all those big cities they had to live in. It wasn't just because they were greedy for wealth and women and land, and the easiest way to get it was by fighting people weaker then them. Are you trying to say there was something unnatural about them?

Greed is what has driven people and societies since the beginning, the first instinct being to take want you want by force.

Diplomacy has been slowly developing for various reasons, but that is not instinctual, it is not our natural state.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now you think we only become aggressive when we have to live in cities.

 

No.

 

I suppose that's why the huns were so violent and aggressive, because of all those big cities they had to live in. It wasn't just because they were greedy for wealth and women and land, and the easiest way to get it was by fighting people weaker then them.

 

And of course you forgot to mention, that they invaded FOREIGN countries. They didn't usually fall onto their own communities. We are talking about this particular effect, not about agression against different tribes or countries.

 

Diplomacy has been slowly developing for various reasons, but that is not instinctual, it is not our natural state.

 

If it were not our natural state, then how come that billions of people live like that? Virtuall ALL countries have laws to regulate how people in THEIR OWN community should get along with. I'm not aware of any tribe where the accepted rule is to turn against their own tribe members. Probably those tribes went extinct pretty fast and hadn't had time to register anywhere. It should be quite obvious IMO.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@oDDity - Hm, I know you think people are "naturally bad" but - well some people are bad all of the time and all of the people are bad some of the time, but the same can be said for goodness as well. If you're not pre-occupied with the bad stuff, you can see that.

 

And actually if you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, you can see that we are "naturally good". Nature favours species that look after themselves as a collective group, think about it. The ones that don't look out for each other, die out first.

 

 

If someone wants a gun, they should be permitted to have it. It's the actions that person takes with the gun that should be judged and penalized. I mean if I go out and by a gun tomorrow and I never use it, am I hurting anyone?
You're saying it like it's a reasonable right, like having gay sex or free speech. Guns are a bit different. There are hunting rifles and then there are millitary class weapons designed soley to kill large amounts of people. What the bloody hell could you ever want such a machine for?

 

You might as well be claiming your god-given right to own a nuclear bomb too. I mean, hey - you're not using it, right?

 

I dunno. I guess my aspirations are too ambitious.

...

But it's beyond our scope to address that so we end up settling with the lesser of two evils, like banning guns.

Bingo. Something sensible finally comes out.

 

It's another example of making the world "stupid-proof". Does anyone else find that depressing? It's like the human race is destined to fail because all the dumb asses on this planet are breeding faster than everyone else.
I'm not depressed that I can't buy an automatic weapon, no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did much worse with long range shooting (across 300-400 meters), because I usually had problems making out the target, but on the closer range when we trained in the army, I was also doing not so bad. Not particular good, but not particular bad either.

I'm really bad with pistols and revolvers, but long-range with rifles I'm pretty good and enjoy more, but yeah, visibility is also a problem for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It stops with guns. Boy, you really are living in a black hole there - HELLOO - Australia, Germany, countries we said multiple times have gun control and don't have the USs level of shooting tragedies.
In America it doesn't stop with guns. You give lawmakers the finger, and they take the hand. Think digital rights, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Recent Status Updates

    • peter_spy

      What a lovely game, perfect way to relax before sleep.
      · 2 replies
    • STiFU

      Anyone here clocking in some times in Neon Light?
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      Boris Johnson's resignation does not change the fact that Australia is home to 29 million kangaroos and Wales has a population of just over three million.

      If the Australian kangaroos were to invade Wales, one resident would have to fight almost ten kangaroos at a time.
      · 8 replies
    • peter_spy

      Deathloop – what a mess of a game. I'd love to see a post-mortem on it some day. I hope Arkane is doing okay though.
      · 27 replies
    • OrbWeaver

      I like house-cleaning and taking out the trash.
      · 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...