debate

We still havent fused culture and mental problems tbh. I think if we wanted ppl who are deranged to be mitigated we should get more school counselors or something. I don’t know really except that the 2 sides wont settle on the grand scale so it’d be better to find anything that might inadvertently help cull some problems from the start

PM of course neither side (in America particularly) will agree. That is because one side has no idea what it is talking about at freaking all. They haven't cracked open a 20th century history book and seen that on a grand scale their ideas about what happens when guns are either restricted or deregulated. One side doesn't even understand guns themselves so it'd be ridiculous to think they could create a sound sensible policy. On no other issue on the planet is there so much policy being created by someone who knows nothing about the topic at hand. Why don't we have climate policy set by an artist or an auto mechanic who barely knows the water cycle or how/why seasons change. Us gun people - we have a pretty good idea how to solve or mitigate these problems but the anti-gun side just thinks we wanna trade blood for guns so they don't listen. It may not always be idealistically pretty or whatnot but we have answers but the other side just doesn't like them (or us).

Sherflow, I see you're from the UK so your ideas and thoughts are of no surprise to me. Yourself and others have brought up the idea of someone with a gun either using them improperly due to heated arguments or "taking law into their own hands". The reality of this is when gun laws are loosened here in America many people react exactly like you do. They go "oh gosh people are going to be shot in cold blood over parking spots" or "oh boy here come them wild wild west cowboys taking the law into their own hands". When it is all said and done the opposite is true. Crime goes down and the stories mentioned previously pretty much don't happen at all. If it was as people claim that guns cause all of these bad things to happen more often why is it that we aren't bombarded with event after event in the news. Our news here in America gleefully reports just about anything bad that happens with a gun and is silent when they are used responsibly. With the amount of people and money invested in gun control if there was a long list of things that happened and that guns were a net negative - that evidence would be forced down our throats on the daily. The point of all of this is that what you and others who share your thoughts think will happen vs what really happens are two different things. It is a pure fallacy to equate lax gun laws with neighbors shooting each other up over frivolous disputes like whose lawn is better. While it is true that lax gun laws *can* have lethal disputes over frivolous things or human nature isn't always rational (both of these are true in theory and I do not disagree with these ideas entirely). While human nature can be a fickle thing that causes tragedy (amplified with a firearm) the amount of data of it actually happening is so low (that being where the cause of the death or gunfire is attributed to "human nature" as opposed to suicide, gang violence, or mass shootings) is statistically negligible to the point where we can almost say that shit never happens. So while people may feel better in a strict gun control society the reality is that the populace is worse off in so many ways. I prefer to live in a society where the people have a means to protect themselves and not be dependent on praying law enforcement arrives in time in the event of a situation. I prefer to live in a society where say for example a woman isn't defenseless against an abusive (ex) boyfriend who is hell bent on doing harm - where that woman has the option to stand up for herself - defend herself. Sure she can call the police or go to a shelter but .... what if she's dead or permanently injured by then. A restraining order doesn't mean shit to someone hell bent on doing harm..... but put a gun in her hand instead of a restraining order and see how quick that guy goes from "I'm going to squeeze your neck so hard your eyes pop out" to "hey babe lets talk and then I'll leave you alone". If one still prefers to not own a gun or doesn't feel right taking another persons life regardless of the reason that is totally fine but don't make that choice for another person. I prefer to live in a society where this is the case.

"If we outlaw guns we will save lives" This is an idea that many people believe in and use as a reason to be in favor of gun regulation or a total ban on them. Guns are treated as a complete net negative - and that this is an absolute given. For the purposes of this I will be using American data as this would be too difficult and cumbersome to do on a global level. Also it is easier to do as close to "apples to apples" as I can, however my argument here will not be entirely statistical. First I will examine the claim that removing guns from the populace will save lives. It is argued that.... *guns are more lethal than knives or other objects in the hands of a super majority of people (in other words the average person is more potent and dangerous with a gun than knife/other) *without guns these deaths that happen because of them will stop (or be reduced) as it will be more difficult to execute homicidal intent (particularly in mass murder situations) *guns are the cause of all sorts of evil on a micro and macro scale - without them that evil is greatly reduced in impact *the only purpose of a gun is to kill - that they are disproportionately dangerous when compared to other things like cars which have other non-lethal purposes In summation it is argued that guns either provide no "good" or that "good" is overwhelmed by the "bad" that comes from their access. That any benefits to civilian ownership of guns is negated by the harm caused by their use. The above argument and logic is going to be the basis of my counterargument. If anything stated above is inaccurate by all means correct me. I believe that I have accurately and fairly represented the ideas central to why people believe that guns are a net negative in a society. I will now explain why the above is pure gibberish that is not backed up logically, statistically, or logistically (practically). I will go in order of my * presented above. 1. Guns are more lethal than knives in the hands of most people - I won't even argue this I've already conceded this. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't even matter to be honest. 2. The removal (or heavy restriction) on guns will save lives by making situations less lethal and making it harder for homicidal intent to be realized at maximum. This is the point where I will be doing most of my counter arguing on. The situations typically described when making this claim would actually be reduced by eliminating firearm access. It would be more difficult for school shooters to obtain guns from their parents, it would reduce killcounts from school massacres as it is harder to kill 20 people with a knife than a gun (for the average person - not some elite navy seal). If you take guns away from everyone there will be less deaths by a gun due to the lack of access - completely true. My response to the above concessions is..... so......fucking.....what. For the above to be true any other situation would have to remain the same and this is exactly where it all goes to shit for the gun control side. For starters most gun deaths per year in America (and I assume globally but I don't have any facts on this so it is a pure assumption based on American data and prevasive logic) are from suicides and gang violence / criminal activity. Between the two this accounts for 75-85% of gun deaths per year in America (60-70% a year to suicide, approximately 20% to gang violence). For consistency I will use 80% (for the purposes of this argument I will be accounting for 65% suicide, 15% gang violence, 20% everything else). I believe that while these rates are different year to year that they are a consistent and steady baseline (they are accurate but not exact). I will be using 35,000 per year as my baseline deaths per year (numbers cited typically are between 32,000 and 40,000 so I find 35,000 to be a fair baseline). That would mean that per year 22,750 - Suicide (by gun) 5,250 - gang violence (gang related homicide) 7,000 - everything else If we want to really save lives we need to examine each case on its own merit and not have one sweeping solution. I have no data on suicides aside from the yearly baseline data provided so I can't speak much to how many of those 22,750 per year would be alive had they not had access to a gun (I'm going to use 50% as a baseline for lives saved per year but I honestly have no idea if that is an accurate baseline). Next gang violence - are we really to believe any laws or regulations at all are going to impact this at all? Most gang violence happens in areas in America with stricter gun regulations already (and the guns used are rarely if ever obtained through legal channels) however I'll be generous and say that 10% of that yearly total is saved through deterrence or whatever. The remainder is homicide, mass shootings, accidental deaths and well any death by a gun that isn't suicide or gang related. Since people can kill people without guns I'll say 5% of the everything else number would still be dead (homicides that would have happened even without a gun). So I'll argue based off of the amount of lives saved by a total gun ban (or something really close to it) at.... 50% of 22,750, 10% of 5,250 and 95% of 7000 or .... 18,550 lives saved per year. Debate over right lives are saved which is good.... right.... lol not even close. There is this little thing called Defensive Gun Use which must be taken into consideration. Guns can be used offensively but they can also be used..... defensively. Estimates on defensive gun use per year are a wide range for sure. It is noteworthy that defensive gun use does not require pulling the trigger (you know taking a life) to satisfy the requirement of being used defensively (that just the threat of force is enough). Also it should be noted that guns are allowed to be used defensively against threats that aren't murder (for example to stop you or someone else from being raped or kidnapped which I'm going to say is a good thing). Estimates for Defensive Gun Use per year range from 300,000 to 3,500,000 (3.5 Million). However another caveat is what constitutes a DGU varies notably from study to study. To be as fair as possible I will take 10% of the minimum DGU estimate which most likely means the strictest of definitions and situations were used in the compilation. This number will represent the amount of lives saved by access to firearms per year. I also use a low 10% to account for DGU's that kill the attacker as that is a life gone still (even if it is the life of someone who isn't the worlds best person - possibly some sort of psycho or socio path). I would imagine even 100,000 per year DGU is a safe and fair number of occurrences per year but I'm going even lower than that to prove a point. So we have (approximately) ..... 18,550 per year saved if guns are outlawed or very heavily restricted to the populace 30,000 per year saved with civilian access to firearms Even someone with a basic grasp of mathematics will be able to verify that 30,000 is higher (a bigger number) than 18,550. Even if I set the baseline for lives saved with suicides low that doesn't account for this difference. Just for giggles I'll redo the math with 75% suicides annually saved. Even at 24,238 still pails in comparison to 30,000. Hell for shits and giggles I'll say that you can save all 35,000 per year. That if we outlawed guns that literally everyone would turn them in (including gangs and criminals) that 100% of those would would commit suicide by gun just wouldn't (successfully) commit suicide, that would be school mass shooters don't kill anybody at all. I think even the most pro gun control supporter would agree that this is unrealistic but I'm still willing to concede this to show just how wrong guns being viewed as a net negative really is. Since I'm being unrealistic and very generous on lives saved per year I'll use 25% of the minimum DGU per year. This means that we'll save 35,000 per year without guns at all and we'll save 75,000. This means that even at 25% of the minimum DGU we're still saving 40,000 lives per year. This under the most generous circumstances and view that guns are a net negative. This is mostly on mathematics and statistics. Even if you disagree with my reasoning for my mathematical values I will justify my use of statistics in this case as if we're going to call guns I believe it is reasonable to have some solid tangible proof of that being the case. I basically gave gun control every single possible break and gave gun defensive data every possible scrutiny and STILL guns are a NET POSITIVE. In other words ACCESS TO GUNS ACTUALLY SAVES LIVES. If you are going to refute this data an analysis and say that guns are still a net negative you better mention defensive gun use in your argument or I will discredit it on the basis of being an incomplete argument and guilty of selective debating. If you are going to make a point don't just make your point but back it up somehow. I have done that and in order for me to take anybody seriously on this topic in particular you either better admit you're being shortsighted or focusing on one specific thing or you better do a respectable job explaining not only your point but why you believe it to be a correct thought. In other words if you are going to come at me as if guns are a net negative you better have some actual reasoning to prove your point. I'm not done yet as I haven't gotten much into non mathematical logic or practicality but I think this is good for now. I'm off to play some board games with my mom :) This post is too long to do a TLDR

^^ TLDR: Guns are an overwhelming net positive in society when defensive gun use is factored in which it should be. If you are going to factor in their harm and bad then it is only fair to factor in their utility and good. Even with the most generous circumstances and data for gun control and the most stringent scrutiny to an armed populace it is convincingly clear that guns are a net positive. As a result of this I will be treating any remark or idea that guns are a net negative as completely wrong and will react accordingly. The above post is mostly mathematical and statistical. I will also delve into logic and practical reasons too later on. If anybody is to counter me either..... Admit you're being short sighted or focused narrowly (much like Lamby on the vegan debate admitting she mostly wants to stick to morality) or ...come at me with a full and complete argument. Don't just say "guns are a net negative" explain in detail why that is and account for counterclaims such as defensive gun use. If I have been unfair in my logic or my use of mathematical data to make my claim by all means counter me with a comprehensive and better methodology for comparison. Until that happens I will be operating under the premise said above that guns are a net positive for society and I will update further reasoning as to why that is. Most people who have argued for gun control are either narrowly focused, closed minded, or just intellectually lazy. This irritates me.

Just to clear up some things on my previous posts about how and why I came to the conclusion based on statistical merit and used American data as opposed to any other country around the world or using global data. The reason I didn't use global data is every country has different standards and rationale for things like this (violent crime stats in general). In my light research it doesn't even appear another country even keeps Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistics or even conducts any studies into the prevalence of DGU (or makes notice that the phenomenon even exists) so to be as fair as possible and give both sides the "anti-gun" and "pro-gun" a fair chance to be viewed positive and negatively DGU has to be factored into any thought process in the matter. America made sense not only because of my familiarity with the data but that America has places with loose or lax gun laws and places with very stringent gun laws. It has a high population and a diverse array of cultures within which makes it as good of a sample as possible without going global. It also allowed the ability to stay as close to "apples to apples" as possible as death stats will be as uniformly defined as possible. Since the point of contention was whether removing (or having access to - as the counterpoint) guns from a general populace is indeed a net positive we had to have a baseline to test the truth of this idea or statement. It shouldn't be limited to just statistics and numbers but they shouldn't be discounted either. I may not have had the most sophisticated of methods but I do believe that I was reasonably fair to the opposing view (that being of gun control). In order to determine whether guns are a net negative or positive it would only be fair to compare lives saved by guns which can realistically only be done where guns are allowed for the general populace. The only way that mathematically guns are a net negative requires an abundance of idiotic assumptions and an obnoxiously strict view on defensive gun use. The only way guns can be a net negative (in America and extrapolated globally) is if 100% of the annual deaths per year are prevented and by banning guns there is no criminal uprising or other nefarious deeds performed with firearms (or no other problem arises locally or globally - notably problems which result in loss of life). Meanwhile you would have to write off 100s of thousands of incidents as complete falsehoods or myths (or assert that an overwhelming amount in excess of 80% of DGU result in the loss of a life). Whether anybody agrees with my analysis or not is one thing but if I can also receive feedback on whether I was fair to the gun control side. In my methodology was I fair to give gun control a fair chance to be the net negative it is viewed as. I was intentionally critical and unfair to the pro gun side and still the conclusion was that guns are a net positive. There are an awful lot of fallacies and lies told by gun controllers in order to advance their points (usually about guns themselves - things like assault weapons, or not knowing semi auto vs full auto, or other technical things) but also dangerous are assumptions that without any particular scrutiny the idea that guns are a net negative being accepted as true is very dangerous and also very wrong. It is also dangerous to assume that guns are an object of causation instead of a tool or symptom of a bigger issue. Ideas like when gun laws are relaxed and more people have firearms there will be shootouts over any little thing like arguments over a parking spot - when there are very few occurrences of this ever happening. Everyone likes to go on about how many guns are in America. While nobody knows for sure how many the estimates are higher than 300 million. With approximately 35,000 lives a year lost to guns that means that less than one tenth of one percent (.001) of guns are used to take a life per year. This just goes to show that every fear that there will be wild west shootouts where people have access to guns is just a pure myth and is nowhere rooted in actual fact and the occurrences that do happen are complete and utter aberrations - true outliers. Lots of things can happen *in theory* when guns are prevalent in a general populace but these things at least in America have never materialized in enough of a quantity to even give it merit. There are virtually no ..... shootings over parkings pots, over whose lawn is better among neighbors, lives lost during domestic disputes at some worrying rate, people taking the law into their own hands like they're the police or James Bond - in a country with well over 300 Million people (so a really good sample size) While you can argue that other countries have lower gun deaths annually than America and there is a great deal of truth to that. Some of that is logically based upon availability of firearms no disputing that - much in the same way you'll have more deaths in a swimming related causes in Florida than say Michigan (due to Florida's warmer climate and access to beaches and increased amount of swimming pools at home). What is never calculated or thought of is what is happening to these people that are disarmed by the government that could be prevented if civilians were armed. It is narrow minded to compare 35,000 deaths in America to 10,000 (literally throwing a number out there) in Canada and just go ... well 35,000 is greater than 10,000 case closed. If you're only factoring in gun deaths the good that guns are is not being accounted for at all. In order to fairly determine one way or another both the good and the bad must be considered and weighed. I will go into detail beyond the numbers in another post but I see no sensible way that guns can be viewed as a net negative (meaning do *more* bad than good - this does NOT mean that they do NO BAD ... A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION). The point of this post is just to clarify my methodology and to assert that in reaching my conclusion that I was fair to gun control in particular. Once again if I was unfair please let me know the basis of why I was unfair and pretty please suggest a more fair methodology (whether it be using global data, adjusting percentages or other data, or not using numerical data at all.. or something else entirely).

Defensive Gun Use (DGU) Since I exclusively brought it up I should clarify more on DGU. It is thought to be a very controversial subject within the statistical academic community. It is very difficult to quantify DGU as it is often noted that DGU's are rarely reported. Methodology is all over the place in the compilation of the data which is why the estimates are extremely wide and I'll admit they should be taken with a grain of salt. This is why I used a small percentage of a low end estimate (and still reached the conclusion that guns are a net positive while giving gun control every possible break and assumption no matter how impractical or dumb). There are some legitimate caveats one can have using DGU studies as methodology is not streamlined and various people will use different logic, information, and use different methods. These will lead to different conclusions. From what I've gathered on the subject this topic is purely American as we're the only country that I can even find DGU data on (whether it be statistics or even an academic study). This is why as mentioned before I had to use America to set my net negative/positive baseline as it is the only place I can find data to fairly compare. Most pro gun people when citing DGU will cite research done by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in 1995 which the data and publicizing of the data occurred in the early 1990s. Their research concluded that between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs occur annually. Another prominent figure in the DGU community is John Lott and he is often cited in DGU discussion. Lott concluded in his research that 98% of the time a DGU merely required brandishing of the weapon (in other words no shots fired) in 1998. He did this again in 2002 and found that brandishing a weapon was sufficient 95% of the time. These studies are what forms the basis of the high end of DGU estimates per year. In the academic community David Hemenway is cited for his DGU data which concludes that on the lower end of the spectrum there are approximately 55,000 to 80,000 per year. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and National Self Defense Survey (NSDS) also conduct surveys on this topic. A key difference between the two is the former doesn't ask every respondent DGU questions where as the later does - this is why NCVS numbers will be lower than NSDS data. In 1994 the NCVS concluded that between 1987 and 1990 approximately 258,460 or 64,615 DGU's annually. A study in 2013 was conducted by the Violence Policy Center using 5 years of FBI data (2007-2011) found an average of 67,740 DGU's annually. It is important to note that reports will not tell the whole story of DGU. DGU suffers from a lot of the same type of reporting shortages rapes and sexual assaults suffer from (albeit for different reasons). This means that there are a lot of DGU's that go unreported. This is because in part someone who brandishes a weapon (and doesn't fire) and the would be assailant runs away the person just goes "problem solved" and isn't likely to report the incident to the police. From what I gather most estimates of DGU do not account for this (or if they do it isn't that prevalent) but I can very well be wrong about this. I am by no means an expert on every DGU survey or data compilation particularly specific methodology or biases. On the other hand I do feel that Kleck and Gertz research overstates DGU's and probably overestimates the amount of unreported DGU. On the same token I feel that the low end either doesn't account for unreported DGU at all or severly underestimates it (opposite problem of my last statement). Even if Kleck and Gertz overstated their estimates by 50% due to biases or overestimating unreported DGU that still leaves a high end estimate of 1 - 1.25 Million DGU a year. Even if I leave the low end estimates alone that creates a low end of 55,000 to 85,000 ( a lot of low end estimates average around 65,000). To balance out the extremes on both sides I believe a fair estimate annually is 65,000 to 1 million. Lott concluded that an excess of 95% of DGU does not require the pulling of the trigger. Even if that percentage is high and there are people who claim that number is high and that the actual number is between 70-80% concluded from similar studies/surveys - this does not contradict that a (super) majority of DGU do not require the actual application of lethal force - in other words DGU is substantially more likely than not to be done with no harm to anybody. To extrapolate this ... 35,000 total lives saved per year given every possible break to gun control 38,500 (the lowest estimate of 55,000 - 70% of that (the lowest estimate I found of DGU not taking a life) Its close but again for it to be this close there are A LOT of reasons why it isn't really this close. This is the comparison with every possible break and assumption in favor of gun control and the most critical estimates of DGU. When you remove the breaks and assumptions that I give to gun control to even save 35,000 a year (in other words it will not be that many) and give even some benefit of the doubt to DGU (in other words lives saved will be higher) my conclusion that guns are a net positive still holds true. There however is one legitimate caveat that one could pose to me that I cannot refute and that is that gun deaths vs DGU are not completely apples to apples (though it isn't apples to oranges either). This is because gun deaths annually are hard data where as DGU are only estimates (or not hard data) and therefore are less valid than a gun death total. Gun deaths are easier to verify and accurately portray than DGU - this much is completely true. If there is one hole in my idea this is it (hard data vs estimates). However just because DGU isn't hard verifiable data doesn't make it meaningless. Since DGU's suffer from the same underreporting problem rapes/sexual assault suffer from it is very difficult to find a narrowly accurate number. I believe that I have fairly accounted for this caveat by giving every benefit to gun control and every scrutiny to civilians with guns. I did so by using the very lowest of estimates which are equally controversial to the high end estimates just to be as sure as I can that I'm being fair to gun control and that the numbers I'm using to compare for a baseline are accurate as can be. Actually being fair is a lie. I was not fair to both sides of the ideological debate - I was very unfair to the side that I believe in and I did so on purpose. I conceded things in the name of saving lives via gun control that sure as hell wouldn't actually materialize (100% of suicide deaths won't be prevented, nor will 100% of gang violence just stop) and used low end DGU estimates for my comparison which already by their methodology (the amount I understand and know of) lend itself to produce an unfairly low estimate. What all of this means is that to me while there is a legitimate caveat against my line of reasoning I have done enough to account for this to not invalidate my argument and conclusion. In other words the caveat does not (alone) constitute grounds to completely disregard my data or conclusion. Without accounting for DGU at all is the only way to see guns as a net negative and that is just completely unfair and closed minded as you do not "give the other side a chance". If you're going to use this caveat against me you better back up why it actually matters and what impact it actually has to consider my argument invalidated (mind you this is just the statistical and numerical basis not using logic or practicality)

So to all who favor gun control realize that I'm maybe only halfway done and I've dismantled virtually every myth and fallacy that passes for a reason. That once you step out of that small narrow bubble of thought gun control gets real wrong real fast. Some examples of some idiotic and false conclusions or ideas that pass for reasons for gun control... Totes: "and yes, i am completely in favor of my statement. i'm not kidding, i am 100% in favor of guns not being used by civilians. i want the army and police to be able to use guns, because to stop illegal activity you sometimes need to do illegal things yourself (and in the case of guns this is especially true)" If you caught my post on page 61 it should detail why only the military and police having guns is a bad idea. Also I have just gone through great lengths to explain why guns aren't even a net negative to a general populace (the opposite being true). Well over 100 years of history have proven the above idea to be just a feel good fantasy and nothing more. Totes: "Well, guns kill, killing is bad, if we have no guns we can't kill anyone, thus resulting in less killing, thus resulting in less death and resulting in more life. (which personally i think is good) This suffers from not accounting for DGU at all even give any credence to the idea that guns can be used defensively (and that defense does not require the firing of the gun). More life is good but I have shown that gun control does not result in "more life" but it does result in more genocide which I believe is a bad thing (and if you value life you believe this to be the case too). This is intellectually closed minded and lazy (or uneducated). This also doesn't account for an increase in murders by other means which is also logically likely (if someone wants to kill a person and doesn't have a gun but access to a knife not a leap to think they will use it if the homicidal intent is there). Lamby and Totes: Was my use of the term "braindead" to describe statements / ideas nice - no I've already said it wasn't but just because some feelings may have gotten hurt does not make me wrong. I'm offended by the lack of logic or evidence backing up claims and even more so that the ideas / concepts brought up in opposition to my view are so narrow and not accounting for cross scrutiny or that "the other side" has valuable knowledge and insight to offer. Instead of trying to make me play nice (and I don't think I've been all that mean or cruel just not rainbow and unicorn nice) how about those who wish to debate me or my ideas actually buck up and come up with a solid debate or idea or admit they don't know all that much and wish to learn. Anybody can come debate if they want moderator or not but that doesn't mean your ideas and stances will not come under scrutiny and that doesn't mean I have to be politically correct. If I see a stupid baseless and false idea I will call it that but I will also as a service explain (as you all have seen in lengthy detail) why that is so that one can learn. You can say that I don't have to be so mean or aggressive in how I go about debating or engaging in discourse and to that my retort is that people do not have to be as obnoxiously ignorant, closed minded, or smug in the presentation of their ideas. If I am presented a comprehensive and sound argument (or at minimum something that isn't complete ignorant drivel) I shall be perfectly non-aggressive or neutral or whatever. If someone is inexcusably ignorant and closed minded and doesn't make any effort to substantiate their thoughts or conclusions (especially a conclusion) I shall feel no need to hold back on any aggression. It isn't nice but my response to that is... fucking deal with it... my only requirement to not be dealt with is to not be ignorant and closed minded really... if you can't deal with that then tough fucking shit. Lamby: "the point i would come to is that guns were a net loss for humanity, instead of a gain, by going by death toll and what it has done to our culture" (with references to skyrocketing totals of lives lost in wars previously - to establish context) First I would hope you read my posts and see if you still come to that same conclusion that I went great lengths to debunk as a falsehood and that guns are a net positive for humanity (the societies / people that have access to them anyway). If you still believe the above quote/conclusion to be true that guns are a net negative..... you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better job explaining why. Lamby: "they save lives? through the threat of death xD they are murder machines guns dont save lives, people save lives >w>/!" So much ignorance in so few words ..... First off actually yes guns do SAVE lives with the THREAT of death. The threat is enough of a deterrent to deescalate an otherwise lethal situation. You say it like it is some impossible conclusion but that is actually what happens. Lots of things are mitigated by deterrence or threat of consequence. I have shown that a majority of defensive gun uses do NOT involve the gun being fired (anywhere from 70-95%). Second off calling guns murder machines stigmatizes them in a very ignorant and closed minded way .... I mean aren't women just meant to be in the kitchen making dinner and cleaning the house? You speak at great lengths about stigmas with minorities or other disadvantaged groups or the stigma against the mental health community .... but when it comes to guns you use ignorant stigmas without a second thought. Guns aren't just "murder machines" - they are also the greatest equalizer humankind has created to this point. Leo briefly touched on this and I will more in further posts. Calling a gun a murder machine like they serve no other purpose or any benefit at all is like saying every woman who has an abortion is doing so for a frivolous reason (like "eh its Tuesday and I no longer want the child that is in my body) leaving no room for something like a complication in the pregnancy that threatens her health. That last bit is just a shitty attempt at the common "guns dont kill people - people kill people" logic that I both believe and use and trying to turn it around. People with guns save lives - like those police that under gun control would be the only ones with guns (maybe except you know..... criminals). In 20 words and a few emojis or whatever you managed to convey a shit load of pure inexcusable ignorance. You are on the internet a lot - enough that you could spend like 5 minutes and realize just how ignorant, dumb, and closed minded remarks like that are. Lamby again: people love to say "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and then say "guns save lives" hardy kek You seem to think there is some kind of hypocrisy here but there really isn't. If you apply a very strict and closed minded approach of the changing of words and people you might just have a point but if you open your mind a bit and actually think the point becomes pretty clear. To anybody who purely views guns as "murder machines" it might not be obvious that guns in fact do perform other functions than cold blooded murder. Defensive gun uses does in fact save lives. It might sound backwards on paper but in the real world it actually is not backwards and contradictory. "guns don't kill people - people kill people" for one a gun is an inanimate object it doesn't do anything on its own. Much like a screwdriver or a saw it is a tool used by people to perform a task (yes that does sometimes include the application of force ... in cold blood) "guns save lives" - if you have read anything I've posted today you will see why this is true. Why we don't say "people save lives" to be "consistent" is because guns are a tool used by humanity to ... save lives. People really need to open up their minds to the fact that guns can and are used defensively that this isn't a myth or a "once in a lifetime" event or some shit gun people make up out of thin air. (speaking in general now) Having a different opinion or perspective is okay and just dandy. Having a great deal of ignorance and closed mindedness however is completely inexcusable given the internet and its vast array of information. In the time it takes for someone to have a bowel movement most of the ignorance can be lifted and us gun people can stop being bombarded by completely retarded nonsense. With the great array of information at our disposal there is no excuse to want to legitimately debate something and be as dumb as the remarks I have noted above. If someone wants to act smug and like they're completely right (I'm guilty of this - won't lie) you better put your money where your mouth is (nobody really does this all that well - I do quite extensively). I'll debate legitimate and coherent ideas just fine and dandy but come at me on the topic of guns with braindead babble and I will feel no obligation to spare feelings. To me it is offensive that not just people are ignorant on this topic... but it is the level, amount, or severity of the ignorance that is particularly offensive to me. Take this as a warning whoever may be reading this if you're on the gun control side don't do so with such ignorant statements. If you're looking for an example of someone in favor of gun control but doesn't babble completely ridiculous statements and admits the shortcomings of their ideas. Look at Sherflow on page 61 last post on page. I read that post and at no point did I feel the need to facepalm and go "is this dumbass braindead". I'm done for the night but I'm not done at all but I'll give other people a chance to read my thoughts and ideas and counter them (or otherwise comment or debate gun control or whatever subject their hearts desire)