The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Prevention is foreignword for you?
Why do we enforce nuclear weapons embargos? It has never been misused. Still US would love to go to war with Iran denying their right for having A bombs. "Leagues apart"? No, they want it for self defence purposes only.

What is it with you people confusing small arms with WMDs? Is there no one out there who can make a valid comparative argument?

Also, preventing what exactly? AP ammo has been out there for years, and exactly how many casualties has it caused?

The whole point of this thread is for gun control supporters to point me to a verifiable example of their ideology lowering violent crime, and so far no one has been able to accomplish this seemingly simple task. Surely, if gun control is such a panacea of crime lowering benefit, there should be some evidence of it working somewhere, shouldn't there? That is, unless it doesn't actually work of course...

i would rather be shot by a fully jacketed round than an expansive ones(such as those used for hunting here in denmark)

If you get shot on purpose your most likely dead no matter what type of bullet was in the gun.
EDIT: Rubber bullets excluded, but still even a blank can kill and has.

Here's the problem with restricting ammunition. I'll provide an example. 5.56x45 NATO rounds are the standard round used in millitary service weapons (in the US and most other NATO countries). It's designed to penetrate 12-30cm through soft tissue, and will, more often than not, penetrate soft body armor. Additionally they manufacturer a cartridge that is specifically designed to be Armor Piercing (which really just means that they substitute the lead core for a steel core) which can shoot through hard (steel plate) body armor, and light vehicle armor. Even the non "armor piercing" cartridge will most likely penetrate through any commonly worn law enforcement body armor. The round isn't very useful for hunting, as the bullet tends to fragment on impact, so it's only real use is in target shooting, and being really good at killing things. So, it might seem obvious to ban that cartridge for civillian use.

Here's the problem:

The .308 winchester cartridge is substantially more powerful than the 5.56, it's also more popular in civilian markets. It can do every bit as much damage as a 5.56 round, including punching through soft body armor. It's also one of the most popular hunting rounds developed, and does not come in an "Armor Piercing" variety - though it could easily perform in that role.

EDIT: Incendiary rounds are prohibited for civilian use nearly universally (I know of no US state that allows them). The reason isn't because they're particularly dangerous to people, but rather they tend to start forest fires. Some states allow tracer rounds, which have an iridescent mark on the back of the bullet. These rounds are not any more dangerous than regular rounds, and sometimes can help a shooter get a better handle on where he's shooting in dark environments.

Dox47 - never mind. You can't see beyond your nose asking for crime lowering evidence. Never mind, enjoy your crime rate and feeling of insecurity.

You dodged the Iran example for third time, so let me say one thing. Not allowing any country to have any weapons they wish is hypocrisy par excellence in regard to your arguments. But surprisingly, there is wide agreement about restrictions in international politics. Why? Because everyone without exception knows that weapons in wrong hands are dangerous. Even gun advocates know this, that's why some weapons around the world are matter of national security. So enjoy your hypocrisy, it's all it is.

I love how the pro-gun folks here are trying to have a civilized debate while the majority of the gun control folks can't resist being rude and obnoxious. It's disgusting.

It's not even pro-gun. Plenty of people are being reasonable, and not all of them are pro-gun (or at least obviously so). There are, unfortunately, a great many people who refuse to debate the merits of each others' arguments, and instead compete to see which group can drown out the other with rhetoric. Which is, of course, the entire point of Dox starting this thread looking for anti-gun advocates to produce reasonable arguments.

Unfortunately, very few have - but those that have risen to the occasion have provided an interesting platform of debate that has transcended gun control specifically and morphed into a discussion on how best to resolve crime problems. Some people just haven't been able to follow along.

This is wildly off-topic, but I'll try to explain a few things to you.

a) the US' policy regarding Iran is that they are in non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty that Iran was a party to, and has ratified. Still, the US has committed to a diplomatic resolution, and has affirmed that the US will not declare war on Iran without the backing of the UN and NATO.

b) No one is enforcing any kind of embargo on Iran because of their nuclear ambitions. The embargo against Iran has been there since 1984, and is designed to prevent Iran from buying military equipment from the US or it's allies. Largely this is because of Iran's public condemnation of the US, and Israel (which is a strategic ally of the US).

c) Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons are regulated for good reason. They have no use other than killing massive amounts of people, livestock, and vegetation - and do so indiscriminately. This is much different than a gun, which must be pointed at a specific target, in a specific direction.

To even suggest that the two are on the same level is wildly inappropriate.

Hmm, insisting on evidence that a policy works before endorsing it is not "not seeing beyond one's nose"? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given the source; gun controllers are not known for being big on empirical evidence and tend to prefer emotion and distraction. I do enjoy my low crime rate, but more importantly, I also enjoy the freedom to take responsibility for myself and enjoy a hobby spuriously forbidden to much of the world.



Hmm, I'd have said I'd been ignoring a red herring, but since you insist, I'll humor you for a moment. Iran is like a mentally ill felon with a record, and I have no problem at all denying weapons to people or countries that fall into that category. At no point have I argued that habitual criminals and the mentally ill should have free access to firearms, nor have I put forward any position at all about WMDs and restrictions on them, as I consider them non-analogous to small arms and a distraction in this topic, at best.

So, I'm still awaiting that specific example of gun control lowering violent crime, any time now would be good.

I gave you Australia zero mass shooting example and also Germany fine crime decrease. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4879894.html#4879894
But you don't care. Whole world is stupid trying control arms, only US knows better. That's why US looses and that's why my remark about your nose = ignorance of facts.
And sorry but you and your buddies stated there emotionally based "arguments" like "I love to shoot, I like my guns, I enjoy my hobby..." This is nothing but emotional crap with no reasoning value at all.

Iran is mentally ill felon Last time this felon attacked anyone was more than 200 years ago.

WMD or any arms are analogous to small arms as long as we consider country's right for self defence analogous to man's right for self defence. It is the same principle. The less WMDs out there, the less probability of misuse. Every country in the world knows this and works on this via embargos and treaties. And you agree too. But you act like hypocrite when applying the same principle to guns in people's hands. Or what about kids with matches, does the fire rate goes higher? Sure thing. And still this doesn't apply to dummies with guns?
Disarming is always the first step in stabilizing security environment. US employ this policy in every country they invaded (well, everyone does). Why would they bother if it has no effect on crime rate?

^

Wow, he really told me, huh?

I like how you completely fail to address my post on exactly why Iran and WMDs aren't analogous to anything. Good job.

your point C is an answer why people call for strict gun laws. WMDs and Iran is only an example of principle. Principle that works and is widely used during every flight, protection of VIPs, social gatherings. Remove guns = minimize threads.

Except guns aren't just used for killing people. They're used as a form of recreation, they're used as a sport, and they're used for hunting. Your argument is invalid.

Outlawing lockpicks would prevent thieves from being able to use them to break into houses, but that would also prevent people from being able to get into their own house if they lock themselves out (or having a locksmith do the same). Also, lockpicking is a legitimate recreational activity that some people enjoy - and as long as they're not breaking into a lock that doesn't belong to them - every bit their right.