MAN UP....is it about "saving lives"....or "getting rid of guns", which is an entirely different concept.

facepalm

facepalm = refusal to answer the obvious.

"GUN RIGHTS: Serious Question: What is the objective. It is not just "to get rid of guns". WHAT is the ultimate objective of the idea of "gun laws"??"

This is an important question.
- If the objective is to reduce crime, and gun laws reduce crime, then it makes sense. If it does not reduce crime, then they do not make sense. We can throw out all the emotional arguments. We can throw out all the conjecture. All we need to do is study the effects of gun laws to determine if it makes sense.

So, why do gun control advocates use emotional arguments and conjecture? Because the statistics show that gun laws do not reduce crime.

http://i.imgur.com/COy6hhf.gif

"Saving Lives" = radically changing society and eliminating guns, food choice and private automobile ownership as a start....IF you *really* want to save the maximum number of lives.

If it is only "get rid of guns" then you have an *entirely different* agenda from "saving lives" as a society.

2WL is afraid to answer a very basic question, and therefore has resorted to foolishness. In any debate class, this would mean you have abdicated your position and lost the debate.

"You did not lay out that premise."

I do not have to lay out any premise when it's quite obvious. Pro-gun Americans resort to the Swiss example by default when asked about successful gun friendly policies abroad despite the fact Swiss policy runs counter to policies they actually support. You cannot promote the results without mentioning the means used.

@ulytau - we point to the Swiss to demonstrate the gun ownership does not cause an increase in crime. This is *different* than saying everyone should be required to own a gun. Moron.

But once again - I'm glad you admit you can't find fault with the Swiss system...

Me: "I don't understand gun violence"
krellin: "MAN UP YOU HATE CARS BITCH"

No point in continuing.

http://i.imgur.com/FoV5u.gif

And again, apart from conscription-related issues that apply only to men of certain age, Swiss gun laws for the rest of population are on par with the rest of Europe. You seem hellbent on the idea I want 0 gun ownership rate, which is funny considering I am 100% sure I fired more bullets, shots and slugs in my life than you ever will.

2WL -- IS YOUR OBJECTIVE TO SAVE LIVES OR GET RID OF GUNS?

You too stupid to understand the question? Or to afraid to admit what the answer is?

The answer to BOTH questions involves legislation and actions by your society, by your government. One simply requires more change and less personal freedom...that's the difference.

So answer the question. Your silence is *deafening*...and revealing.

I love my cars. I love my freedom of food choices.

I love the safety of a gun in my home.

I never said I hate cars....you said you want to....grab guns....or was it save lives? Oh, wait, COWARD NEVER ANSWERED...

whatever ulytau...vague references to your manliness with firing bullets, slugs or otherwise is meaningless drivel. You spend more time avoiding the actual topics than you do addressing them.

so...YOU man up, ulytau...do you want to:
A. Save as many lives as possible through government action?
B. Take guns away from people?

Let's see if you have a bigger pair than 2WL...

"apart from conscription-related issues that apply only to men of certain age, Swiss gun laws for the rest of population are on par with the rest of Europe."

deflect, lie by abstension, etc. Gun ownership by the Swiss is huge, gun crime by the Swiss is low. blah blah blah.....conscription, deflect, lie, avoid truth, blah blah blah....you are an idiot ulytau. You want to talk about the Swiss, but you don't want to talk about the facts. High gun ownership. Low gun crime. Period. End of story.

Gun ownership DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CAUSE crime rate increase. Period. End of story.

"Gun ownership DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CAUSE crime rate increase. Period. End of story."

That's only half the story. Restrictive Gun laws do not automatically cause crime rate decrease either. Both sides of the story are false arguments for gun control laws.

Wonderful....so, we agree that gun crime has *nothing* to do with gun laws!

Great...so...the attempt to grab guns really has nothing to do with reducing crime. Agreed.

Therefore, boiled down to the basic facts...gun laws are about grabbing guns only, and are not about saving lives or reducing crime, because no statistic demonstrates gun laws do anything other than take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Therefore, gun laws seem purely to be about reducing freedom of choice.

Thank you, Devonian. Gun laws are not about saving lives. Agreed. They are about loss of personal freedom by law abiding citizens.

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.

As I said before, my county has a very very HIGh gun per house ratio, and we have....zero gun crimes. We have suicides by gun, but if someone is willing to kill themselves, they dont need a gun to do it.

"Therefore, gun laws seem purely to be about reducing freedom of choice"

I don't believe owning a gun gives me more choice as there is a limited amount of things you can actually do with a gun, I think owning a gun restricts my choice basically down to one option, shooting someone, unless I wave it at them in a scary way while making growling animal noises.

As a 'normal' person I don't like the idea that I shoot someone before they shoot me as there is every chance they might be a bit better at it than me and I might end up robbed and dead rather than just robbed.

@Stressed - NYC has some pretty strict gun control laws too and its violent crime rate has been plummeting for decades.

Also, I'm just gonna step in here and point out a fundamental flaw in krellin's argument. krellin, you said that cars are not a necessity and that people have alternative modes of transport to get places. However, most of what you listed are just motor vehicles being driven by other people, soooooo cars really *are* a necessity is what you're saying.

Besides, motor vehicle crashes will soon be a thing of the past. 20 years from now we won't even be driving the cars we own - they'll be driving themselves

On the topic of declining crime, new studies suggest that the decrease in crime is because of the bans on lead based paint and the decrease in lead in oil. Crime rates drop between 65% and 80% over the 10 year period following those bans, regardless of the country and laws in place.

Regarding the soda ban, as a libertarian people may be surprised to find I actually support this ban, however I only support a ban at restaurants, I think you should be able to buy 2L coke bottles in a grocery store, but I don't want people having a 32 ounce coke with their big mac and fries.

"Restrictive Gun laws do not automatically cause crime rate decrease either. "

Liberal Gun laws also automatically don't cause the gun ownership rate to increase. Case in point, the gun laws in the Czech Republic are as liberal as those in Switzerland for the majority of population (which is why I opted-out from the conscription, something krellin would understand if he wasn't drinking from the dawn) yet the gun ownership rate is almost 3 times lower. Conversely, the gun laws in Germany are tighter yet the gun ownership rate is twice as high. Which means that stricter gun laws =/= no one can get a gun if they want to. Even more, it definitely isn't true that stricter gun laws =/= confiscating all legally owned weapons in circulation. That's a strawman that doesn't accurately describe the majority opinion among those for stricter gun laws.

On the other hand:
Tighter gun laws = convicted felons and those with a mental disability cannot own guns legally.
Tighter gun laws = more strict monitoring of mental disabilities among current gun owners.
Tighter gun laws = firearms registration and periodic capability test and handling exams.
Tighter gun laws = restricting which public places you can go with your gun.

"vague references to your manliness with firing bullets, slugs or otherwise is meaningless drivel."

I couldn't be taking part in biathlon or skeet shooting with guns outlawed, dummy. It's quite obvious to anyone sober that if I shoot guns regularly, I cannot be a supporter of 0 gun ownership rate. But with krellster on the case, nothing is ever obvious.

Ulytau what I was implying was that if you outright banned gun ownership (like they did in 97 in Australia), all currently owned guns become illegal.

goldfinger - I said "private ownership of cars". Really, people, it's quite simple. You are either *purposely* missing the point, or have poor reading skills. Obviously *public* transportation implies that cars/buses still exists...you just can't drive them yourself! Meaning far less vehicle traffic, regulated, trained drivers (like cops/military as the regulated, trained gun owners), reduction in pollution, etc...and you can still get from point a to point b on a government run schedule. Quite simple, actually, and it increased employment opportunity in the country...so it is a great idea all around!

nigee....if you have NO choice to own a gun, then you have no choice. If you have the choice to own a gun, then, by definition, you have more choices and more freedom of action. Specifically, it is *one* more choice. ONE is GREATER THAN ZERO...thus more choice.

" 20 years from now we won't even be driving the cars we own - they'll be driving themselves .." Yes, and 20 years ago, according to the projections of 50 years ago, I had my first flying car...

SOMEONE BRAVE ANSWER THE QUESTION: is it about SAVING LIVES or GETTING RID OF GUNS?

Cowards...

Krellin; using strawman arguments since April 2010.