I am serious, I don't know the full details of the law, but I don't want obesity killing everyone because they drink too much pop.

Sorry, Fasces, but I only read the posts from krellin ITT since they are the most entertaining so I don't know at which occasion you raised this valid point. I am against banning guns because it doesn't add any value to properly set gun policy. Stricter gun laws can only measurably affect homicides, not gun crime, since gun crime is overwhelmingly commited with illegal guns. On the other hand, homicides as a whole contain incidents similar to Cheney shooting Whittington in the ass because he is apparently incapable of handling his guns responsibly as is therefore dangerous to his surrounding if he is allowed near one without further education. Accidents like these are greatly curtailed by restricting gun ownership to people who know how to take care of a gun and are physically fit to do so, all similar to the restrictions on driving a car. Gun registrations allows to put before court the owner who in his utter irresponsibility allowed his gun to be used unlawfully by someone else or even just allowed access to it to someone who was not allowed to be around guns. Mental health checks are obvious I suppose. You don't need to ban guns to achieve this improvement in homicide rate and hoping for anything more requires a lot of faith.

The valid point being: you ban guns, all currently legal guns become illegal.

Fasces - apparently being a coward...AGAIN.

"Krellin; using strawman arguments since April 2010. "

There is no strawman argument...I am taking your supposed logic "I want the government to do X to save lives" and I am applying the same principle elsewhere that the government has control.

IF we want the government to act on our behalf to save lives, by limiting our freedoms, then let us apply this principle *everywhere* that the government can act, and save the maximum number of lives. No strawman at all...it is called *principles*. I am applying the supposed principle of gun control, which in theory is about the government saving lives. No private automobile ownership = saved lives. It's the principle.

NOBODY...Facses included will answer the one *seemingly* simple question:

IS GUN CONTROL ABOUT SAVING LIVES OR TAKING AWAY GUNS?

FACSES - Using the "your using a strawman argument" to avoid answering simple questions since 2010.

Stressed,
"Devnoian, depends on which example, since in DC and Chicago, the restrictive Gun laws did see a sharp increase in crime in general, and in Chicoago, it is a combat zone right now"
- True. Thanks for pointing that out. In many cases, crime increases with restrictive gun laws.

Goldfinger & Olytau,
"NYC has some pretty strict gun control laws too and its violent crime rate has been plummeting for decades."
"Liberal Gun laws also automatically don't cause the gun ownership rate to increase"

- The point I am trying to make is that the crime rates are INDEPENDENT from gun laws. We need better mental health programs, better crime enforcement, better gun safety education. We don't need restrictive gun laws.

"I am serious, I don't know the full details of the law, but I don't want obesity killing everyone because they drink too much pop. "

Why stop at pop? Narrow minded fool. Once again, you demonstrate ZERO consistency in your desire for government control. Why are you so cold-hearted that you will let the oreo cookie lovers die of heart disease while only saving the fatties sucking down 2-liters? Damn - you are quite the cold-hearted bastard...and completely void of any logical consistency.

If we want to use statistics to ban things...gun violence is probably highest in certain ethnic concentrations of our country. Much stronger violence correlations between ethnic densities than between gun control laws....perhaps we should ban race,,,<throw gasoline on fire...><runs...>

ulytau, I understand, lol

@Krellin: The irony is I agree with you that guns should be legal, but your arguments are retarded and I'm still going to point that out.

Clearly we can't ban races...so:
We ban gun ownership by blacks and hispanics, because crime rates by gun violence are highest in the inner city, which are primarily black and hispanic.

Incidental white gun crime is to be ignored, just liek the incidental crime by police and military personal can be ignored (since even gun grabbers say police and military can keep guns)...So...we are clearly targettign the largest are of gun crime...and strongest statistical corellation we can find isn't betwen gun crime and gun laws, but between gun crime and the ethnic population of urban centers where gun crime is highest.

Right? So we ban gun ownership by black and hispanics?

Oh...can't do that...obviously.

so once again...we are back to arbitrary grabbing of guns independent of facts and statistics, independent of whether or not we want to save lives or not, but simply becuase we want to grab guns.

FACSES -- doyou want to SAVE LIVES by government intervention of just GRAB GUNS?

ANSWER THE QUESTION..

Then, depending on the answer, we formulate exactly how intrusive you want your government to be.

It's not a stupid question AT ALL. It was stupid to think government would ban foods...and then Bloomberg DID IT!!!! Morons...

Krellin I support the right to bear arms, but your strawma argument is retarded. That is what I believe.

You apparently don't know what that word means, Fasces.

FIRST: WHAT is the objective of "gun control"? To SAVE LIVES, or to GRAB GUNS?

If it is save lives, then I have not made a straw man argument *at all*, because I am applying the logical extension of "government control to save lives" to the other very obvious areas in which we can save lives. No straw man AT ALL.

If the objective is purely "gun control" and not saving lives, then I have not made a straw man argument, because you can dismiss my banning of cars, because the premise of banning cars is purely tied to the argument of savings lives through government intervention.

You, fasces, and the others here, have consistently failed to answer the **very basic question**.

You idiots waste your time debating a topic when not one of you will even be honest about what the OBJECTIVE is!!! Morons, all of you.

I'm sorry but this is a strawman argument:
If you think banning guns saves lives then ban cars because they kill more then guns.

that is what you have been saying again and again.

YOU: "The point I am trying to make is that the crime rates are INDEPENDENT from gun laws."

ME: "Stricter gun laws can only measurably affect homicides, not gun crime, since gun crime is overwhelmingly commited with illegal guns."

Thanks for agreeing with me.

"We need better mental health programs, better crime enforcement, better gun safety education. We don't need restrictive gun laws."

Your better mental health programs and gun safety regulation is meaningless if you cannot make it obligatory for gun owners, at whom it is aimed after all. The efficiency of measures you want would be negligible if not taking part in them wouldn't disqualify a person from owning a gun. If you want mentally healthy and educated gun owners then you have to force them to undergo a gun education and periodic mental health checks. No one will voluntarily go see a doctor for mental health inspection just to be a better gunowner. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are purposely ignorant. I asked the Question - which you shameless refuse to answer: WHAT is the purpose of gun laws? For government to intervene in out lives and save lives? Or is it purely to get rids of guns for an unspecified purpose.

IF the answer is "government should intervene to save lives" then it is a completely reasonable and *logical* conclusion to ALSO say "government should ban cars" because they serve the TRUE purpose...to save live. Getting rid of guns is A METHOD of saving lives. ANOTHER METHOD woudl be banning cars. They are PARALLEL actions *IF* the purpose is government intervention to save lives.

IF you sole objective is saving lives, no matter that is violates personal freedom, then you should agree to *any* method of government intervention to save lives. Plus, there is a plethora of additional value to eliminating personal automobiles, which after a single generation will be considered the norm, and hardly inconvenient.

A straw man argument would be to argue something compeletly different. I am arguing for THE SAME THING....government intervention to save lives. Not a straw man at all.

YOU are just too much of a coward to answer the **real question**....WHAT is gun control about? Saving lives? Or getting rid of guns for some arbitrary reason?

MAN UP an answer the basic question of motive and I'll go away.


"I'm sorry but this is a strawman argument:
If you think banning guns saves lives then ban cars because they kill more then guns.
that is what you have been saying again and again. "

So thoughts on Krellin being a troll?

Ulytau,
"No one will voluntarily go see a doctor for mental health inspection just to be a better gunowner. You can't have your cake and eat it too."

- I wasn't proposing forcing gun owners to get mental exams. I was suggesting that it is the people who are the problem, not the guns.

Thoughts on facses and crowd being afraid to answer a *simple* question:

What is the purpose of "gun control"? Save lives, or eliminate guns?

I'm not in favour of gun control krellin so stop asking that

regardless of whether or not you are in favor, you have no opinion, no idea, what "gun control" is intended for by those who advocate it? You fight against someone without even attempting to understand their purpose??? Don't you think *understanding* your opponent is the *best* place to start when having a discussion with them???

Therefore: WHAT is the ultimate purpose of gun control? If you can't answer that question, then how can you have a discussion about it?

I'm not in favor of gun control either, obviously. I also know the "public" answer why they want it "look at the dead children...if we can save just ONE child's life..." they *always* say when using a school shooting to push their agenda...

I also know the ulterior motive: Just get rid of guns "because we don't like them" is the real answer generally, because no gun control advocate can provide any clear evidence that gun laws prevent violence. So their desire isnt' based upon saving lives - because I can provide real evidence that gun ownership saves lives...so it is simply "I don't like guns...they scare me..." and NOT "to save lives"

Understanding that motive is important to the discussion, don't you think? It is the difference between a rational debate, and a religious discussion of "belief". Liberals supporting a cause without facts generally utilize religious terminiology and emotion to persuade when fact fail them...which is *exactly* what the gun control debate is....much like global warming (see Abge's Sciene Weekly thread if you dare...)