Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Moronical
l_Shamrock_l
A Harvard study shows that the places in the world with the highest rate of gun ownership actually have the least crime, while the places with the lowest rate of gun ownership have the most crime. I don't see how people keep rejecting the correlation when the numbers are so obvious...


Because America has such a low crime rate compared to Scandinavia, lol


Well, on average, but obviously specific cases will be different since guns aren't the only things that are connected to crime. xp
Suicidesoldier#1
Moronical
l_Shamrock_l
A Harvard study shows that the places in the world with the highest rate of gun ownership actually have the least crime, while the places with the lowest rate of gun ownership have the most crime. I don't see how people keep rejecting the correlation when the numbers are so obvious...


Because America has such a low crime rate compared to Scandinavia, lol


Well, on average, but obviously specific cases will be different since guns aren't the only things that are connected to crime. xp

Hmmm. If Scandinavia has a lot of guns but not a lot of crime, that would explain why that guy shot up that place.
Moronical
l_Shamrock_l
A Harvard study shows that the places in the world with the highest rate of gun ownership actually have the least crime, while the places with the lowest rate of gun ownership have the most crime. I don't see how people keep rejecting the correlation when the numbers are so obvious...


Because America has such a low crime rate compared to Scandinavia, lol
The study actually shows that European countries with the most gun ownership have the least crime in Europe as well. I thought I included that in my previous post.
Less casualties in massacres.

Massacres will happen no matter what laws you add in.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

So... as much as I would like this problem to go away, the bill is still being proposed and there are still advocates, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT.

So... kind of a big deal.


Knowing this info, would it change your stance on the subject?
Alan Pistachio's avatar

Fashionable Firestarter

I think it's pretty useless, as you said, a lot of what is considered 'assault weapons' are already banned, and have been so for a long time. Yet people still get them. Did you know guns are banned in Chicago? A hell of a lot of people still get shot in Chicago. It's useless. If you gave me a psychological test, I probably wouldn't be allowed to even purchase a handgun, but guess what? Give me some cash and I can go get a gun, rob a bank, murder some people, and be home before dinner. =]
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

So... this is still on the table and ammunition is... not really in stores right now.

So... my question is, upon realizing what an assault weapons ban is, would you still support it?


Are pistol grips, barrel shrouds, adjustable stocks, forward grips, and semi-auto really that dangerous?
Frantic Fluttershy's avatar

Shy Explorer

Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Btw I don't hate fallacies. You just unjustly made a claim about my demeanor, that's fallacious.
You should know that excessive diction with semantic syntax creates for a bad joke.

Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.
You're argument is dead, but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol


I've already explained the bold in the response you just quoted, but apparently didn't care to read. It's still there, for your leisure.

Posties
...but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol

I don't recall making that point. Maybe if you didn't make them for me, you'd find our conversations far less disagreeable.
Now you just ruined the only point you had going for you.
Quote:
It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
You bolding a made up definition is not relative. Intent is separate from the definition.


Oh, so you didn't listen then. If you will.
You're such a contrarian. Ruin your points if you want, makes it easier for me to make mine.


I found his joke funny.

But what I find funnier, is that you flat out tell him that what he said is a joke, and then you tell him it's not a joke because nobody found it amusing, and then you post a definition that supports nothing.
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Mister George Kapland
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic


I've already explained the bold in the response you just quoted, but apparently didn't care to read. It's still there, for your leisure.


I don't recall making that point. Maybe if you didn't make them for me, you'd find our conversations far less disagreeable.
Now you just ruined the only point you had going for you.
Quote:
It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
You bolding a made up definition is not relative. Intent is separate from the definition.


Oh, so you didn't listen then. If you will.
You're such a contrarian. Ruin your points if you want, makes it easier for me to make mine.


I found his joke funny.

But what I find funnier, is that you flat out tell him that what he said is a joke, and then you tell him it's not a joke because nobody found it amusing, and then you post a definition that supports nothing.
I said it's not a funny joke, the definition I stated if you read was to counter his self-made definition that he held to be axiomatic. Nice failure on assessing that statement, at least you tried.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Posties
Mister George Kapland
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Now you just ruined the only point you had going for you.
You bolding a made up definition is not relative. Intent is separate from the definition.


Oh, so you didn't listen then. If you will.
You're such a contrarian. Ruin your points if you want, makes it easier for me to make mine.


I found his joke funny.

But what I find funnier, is that you flat out tell him that what he said is a joke, and then you tell him it's not a joke because nobody found it amusing, and then you post a definition that supports nothing.
I said it's not a funny joke, the definition I stated if you read was to counter his self-made definition that he held to be axiomatic. Nice failure on assessing that statement, at least you tried.



Really?

Quote:
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


I find it amusing, and it caused me laughter. By your flawed, and completely incorrect definition. He wins. Now get the ******** out of my ED with your bullshit semantic rambling.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Well at least people are talking.

But what about assault weapons?!
Frantic Fluttershy's avatar

Shy Explorer

It's just a tool. It’s a hunk of steel. It has no magical powers and the person that fired it is not some all-powerful God. He’s just a guy with a gun and like every other bad guy he’s damaged goods.

If they ban them people that want to do evil things will just use a different tools.

People who want this ban are uneducated about guns they think the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle. They think this gun is basically a machine gun,M-16 or just plainly any gun capable of firing hundreds of rounds per second. People are so uptight about this i haven't had one day where i didn't hear about a kid getting expelled or arrested over imaginary games about saving the world,nerf guns, a hello kitty bubble gun, etc etc.

Stuff happens banning the tool would not have stopped it they will find another way and maybe a more deadly way. Also all a ban will do is keep it out of the hands on law abiding citizens people who do evil things do not care about a ban they will get what they need any way they can. I think if average joe wants to use a AR-15 to hunt to each their own. For home defense it seems a lil bulky but again whatever floats your boat.

heart
Kimihiro_Watanuki's avatar

5,900 Points
  • Entrepreneur 150
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
The Great Pinkie Pie
User Image


This. This a thousand times over. This is all what the AWB is about. Banning weapons that look like "military style assault weapons". Banning anything that the media portrays as some kind of magical machine that spews death.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Yeah!

See?!


Assault weapons not so bad.

Since their basis is mostly cosmetics it shouldn't be passed.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games