XM8, retire everything elese, this things a beast.

[Joe]

you really have no clue how insane that sounds to most people outside of the US

btw how many american cities with a population of 4 million + has less than 70 murders a year? none? well my city with a population of 4 + million and usually averages around 50-60 murders a year ..and guess what? handguns are extremely hard to come by ..you think there's a co-relation?

And it's a proven fact that cities in the US that allow Concealed carry have lower crime rates then cities/states that don't, Quite a co-relation indeed.

 

[Joe]

moving to a safer area would be easier dont ya think?

Spending around $1200 for a pistol, CCW permit, and some firearm training classes versus selling ones house and moving to a new area, finding another job, etc is easier? :stare:

Not too many people have the ability to just pick up and move.

 

[CptStern]

yup the money's worth your life

 

[SIGbastard]

yup the money's worth your life

I don't care about my money. It's the life of my wife and myself i value. If somebody put a gun to my head I would just hand them my wallet. If I thought my wife was in danger I would risk my own life to save hers.

 

[CptStern]

wouldnt it be safer to move to an area where you dont run the risk of having a gun pointed at your head?

 

[SIGbastard]

There is most likely a good time and a bad time to actually use your gun. If somebody pulled a knife on me I'd probably draw and warn them to stay back, but if someone had a gun on me at a close distance then I would comply with them. I've never been in any of these circumstances so I really don't know what I'd do in any of them for sure. Each circumstance calls for different actions. Oh and I have a 500lb safe bolted to the concrete foundation of my house. That's were I store my guns unless I'm wearing them. So when I have kids they will not have access to them.

 

[SIGbastard]

wouldnt it be safer to move to an area where you dont run the risk of having a gun pointed at your head?

Could you tell me exactly where this area is at?? Criminals don't follow gun laws therefore banning them won't keep them out of their hands. Washington DC is a great example. All guns are banned there, yet it is the most violent place in the U.S.

 

[CptStern]

Washington DC is a great example. All guns are banned there, yet it is the most violent place in the U.S.

what are they using? crowbars? baseball bats? methinks it wouldnt be all that hard to bring a gun into the city

no guns = no/or little chance of gun pointed at head

 

[Tr0n]

no guns = no/or little chance of gun pointed at head

But yet they could still use a knife, a metal bat, a golf club, or some wood working tool....

 

[SIGbastard]

The gun to my head was just an example anyways. I seriously doubt that in Oklahoma I will ever need my gun. There is still the possibility I will need it though. It doesn't matter where you live. The possibility will exist anywhere. So you must choose to either have the capability of defending yourself against armed criminals (whether with bats, knives, guns, or whatever), or choose to go about like sheep ignorant of the violence in this world. Do you think in the minutes it takes for police to arrive to a scene that nothing violent will take place??

 

[Joe]

no guns = no/or little chance of gun pointed at head

Washington DC is a great example. All guns are banned there, yet it is the most violent place in the U.S.

 

[Joe]

wouldnt it be safer to move to an area where you dont run the risk of having a gun pointed at your head?

You never did answer where these magical "safe" places are.

 

[CptStern]

The gun to my ahead was just an example anyways. I seriously doubt that in Oklahoma I will ever need my gun. There is still the possibility I will need it though. It doesn't matter where you live. The possibility will exist anywhere. So you must choose to either have the capability of defending yourself against armed criminals (whether with bats, knives, guns, or whatever), or choose to go about like sheep ignorant of the violence in this world.

I'm hardly ignorant of violence in the world ...what? did you just get here or something

the stats say that in 2 thirds of the murders in the US a fireamr was the cause of death

 

[CptStern]

You never did answer where these magical "safe" places are.

my city: 4 million +
murders: 50 -70
----------------
safe

 

[Tr0n]

I'm hardly ignorant of violence in the world ...what? did you just get here or something

the stats say that in 2 thirds of the murders in the US a fireamr was the cause of death

Again....they could use other weapons to kill someone even if you did ban all guns...

 

[SIGbastard]

what are they using? crowbars? baseball bats? methinks it wouldnt be all that hard to bring a gun into the city

no guns = no/or little chance of gun pointed at head

It's not hard if you don't obey the laws. That's the point. Criminals aren't deterred from breaking laws so banning guns only affects individuals like you and I. Violence in the US is not a product of our guns it's a product of our culture. In Switzerland men are required to have a modern rifle in their homes, yet it has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world.

 

[ductonius]

Oh Captain my Captain! Mr.Stern! CptStern! I'm still waiting for a reply to my question!

What were you trying to prove by posting those statistics?

 

[PvtRyan]

It's not hard if you don't obey the laws. That's the point. Criminals aren't deterred from breaking laws so banning guns only affects individuals like you and I. Violence in the US is not a product of our guns it's a product of our culture. In Switzerland men are required to have a modern rifle in their homes, yet it has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world.

Sure, it's a result of culture, but having a gun around makes stepping over the line a whole lot easier and more attractive. You're right that people will still kill and hurt without guns, but people will be less prone to using violence when it's not made so easy. If I need to slam a nail into some wood, and I can find a hammer, I'll probably improvise with a brick or something, but it's not as easy and convenient as a hammer.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Sure, it's a result of culture, but having a gun around makes stepping over the line a whole lot easier and more attractive. You're right that people will still kill and hurt without guns, but people will be less prone to using violence when it's not made so easy. If I need to slam a nail into some wood, and I can find a hammer, I'll probably improvise with a brick or something, but it's not as easy and convenient as a hammer.

The flaw in this logic is that when all citizens are called to turn in their firearms, the criminals will not do so.

Oh no, now the law abiding firearm owners are completely unarmed, and the only armed private population is the criminal element.

The only way for that to work is if a society never had guns around in the first place.

And as far as the "makes stepping over the line easier comment"- look at this-

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

 

[CptStern]

Oh Captain my Captain! Mr.Stern! CptStern! I'm still waiting for a reply to my question!

What were you trying to prove by posting those statistics?

guns kill!

there, ya satisfied?

 

[ductonius]

guns kill!

there, ya satisfied?

Wow, that answer begs the question: If your point was so non-debatable then why ignore my request to know it for a good bit over three pages?

 

[CptStern]

Wow, that answer begs the question: If your point was so non-debatable then why ignore my request to know it for a good bit over three pages?

look the point is so painfully obvious; must we re-examine it to death? Sure there is room for interpretation but by your own admission it's speculative at best because you've made a few assumptions on numbers that are not represented in the chart

You take one sentence and twist it to prove one insignificant point yet ignore the bigger picture. The point is that over 2/3 of the people murdered were killed by firearms ...take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower

 

[ductonius]

look the point is so painfully obvious; must we re-examine it to death?

Thats the problem: You posted the information and seemed to expect people to make your point for you.

I didnt assume to know your point so I asked for one, and it took you three pages to summon up your paltry, cursory response.

Sure there is room for interpretation but by your own admission it's speculative at best because you've made a few assumptions on numbers that are not represented in the chart

Speculative? Not in the slightest. Assumption != specualtive. Since the sameple size in those statistics is so large it is not inappropriate to assume the unknown group is like the known group (in essence, that is what statistic are, taking a small sample of a population and using it to draw conclutions about the unknonwn rest of the population). I even stated this *single* assumption so to avoid any sort of confustion.

The information I got came from the official FBI page that the graph was cherry-picked from. As far as I know, I'm not limited to using only the data you provided. I stated that I used that extra information and where it came from as well.

The point is that over 2/3 of the people murdered were killed by firearms ...take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower

The problem is that you have no basis for the assumption that fewer guns would lower the number of gun murders and the data you provide dosent even relate to it other than giving background information on the subject.

In other words, you're making a statement of opinion completly unsupported by any data whatsoever.

 

[SIGbastard]

I seem to remember a story of an kid in Australia taking a crossbow to school shortly after guns were banned in Australia. I don't remember the details... It just seems somehow relevant.

 

[CptStern]

Thats the problem: You posted the information and seemed to expect people to make your point for you.

I didnt assume to know your point so I asked for one, and it took you three pages to summon up your paltry, cursory response.



Speculative? Not in the slightest. Assumption != specualtive. Since the sameple size in those statistics is so large it is not inappropriate to assume the unknown group is like the known group (in essence, that is what statistic are, taking a small sample of a population and using it to draw conclutions about the unknonwn rest of the population). I even stated this *single* assumption so to avoid any sort of confustion.

The information I got came from the official FBI page that the graph was cherry-picked from. As far as I know, I'm not limited to using only the data you provided. I stated that I used that extra information and where it came from as well.



The problem is that you have no basis for the assumption that fewer guns would lower the number of gun murders and the data you provide dosent even relate to it other than giving background information on the subject.

In other words, you're making a statement of opinion completly unsupported by any data whatsoever.

doesnt take a genius to see

no guns = less gun deaths

look I'm tired and bored and frankly you gun advocates scare me with your "shoot this! impale that!" attitude but it's too late in the evening to be splitting hairs to an infinitesimal size. (ductonius: "well that's physically impossible because it's contrary to what it says in the first stanza of your disputation on whether guns are to be blahblahblahblahblahblah")



:dozey:

 

[SIGbastard]

doesnt take a genius to see

no guns = less gun deaths

look I'm tired and bored and frankly you gun advocates scare me with your "shoot this! impale that!" attitude but it's too late in the evening to be splitting hairs to an infinitesimal size. (ductonius: "well that's physically impossible because it's contrary to what it says in the first stanza of your disputation on whether guns are to be blahblahblahblahblahblah")



:dozey:

There is a problem. Guns will always be around. There is no escaping this fact. So do you only allow criminals to own them by making laws to ban them, or do you level the playing field.

 

[ductonius]

doesnt take a genius to see

no guns = less gun deaths

Ah yes, another pointless point of the "guns kill!" variety.

It's absolutly true that if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun deaths. In fact, there were no gun deaths on Earth for quite some time; I beleive for several million years after humans evolved and before guns were invented, noone died from a gunshot wound.

The probelm with such a statement is that it lacks contextual relivance and application to the real world. For an idea to be valid it must take into account all factors relating to it; saying "take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower" is all fine and dandy until you try to account for how the tool is supposed to be taken away, which is a totally and completly relivant question since we are discussing firearms in the context of real life. Without addressing the application of the idea, the idea is nothing more than an intelectual experiment conducted under controled conditions.

It is a sort of intelectual fiction where some factors are ignored in order to increase the aethetic appearance of the idea.

look I'm tired and bored and frankly you gun advocates scare me with your "shoot this! impale that!" attitude

(ductonius: "well that's physically impossible because it's contrary to what it says blahblahblah")

You're self-imposed impressions of me are not at all relivant to the discussion at hand. Bringing them up is a bothersome distraciton at best and shows real intelectual sloppieness at worst.

 

[Tr0n]

Ah yes, another pointless point of the "guns kill!" variety.

It's absolutly true that if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun deaths. In fact, there were no gun deaths on Earth for quite some time; I beleive for several million years after humans evolved and before guns were invented, noone died from a gunshot wound.

The probelm with such a statement is that it lacks contextual relivance and application to the real world. For an idea to be valid it must take into account all factors relating to it; saying "take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower" is all fine and dandy until you try to account for how the tool is supposed to be taken away, which is a totally and completly relivant question since we are discussing firearms in the context of real life. Without addressing the application of the idea, the idea is nothing more than an intelectual experiment conducted under controled conditions.

It is a sort of intelectual fiction where some factors are ignored in order to increase the aethetic appearance of the idea.



You're self-imposed impressions of me are not at all relivant to the discussion at hand. Bringing them up is a bothersome distraciton at best and shows real intelectual sloppieness at worst.

I....I love you... :E

 

[johnshafft]

less cars means less auto fatalities
less Airplanes means less Aircraft acident related fatality
less Electric equipment near bath tubs means less death by electrocution while in a bath tub
less drugs means less drug use

guns arent going anywhere, and taking a way an honest citzens right to posess a gun isnt going to make a safer world, since you can build a good zip gun in less than 30minutes. As fact can show thiers more deaths caused by autos than guns, if you want to try to save lives than demand better driver education.

 

[Viperidae]

Doesn't anybody listen to Chris Rock? 'We need bullet control. We need to control the bullets. A bullet should cost $5000.'

...

 

[CptStern]

Ah yes, another pointless point of the "guns kill!" variety.

It's absolutly true that if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun deaths. In fact, there were no gun deaths on Earth for quite some time; I beleive for several million years after humans evolved and before guns were invented, noone died from a gunshot wound.

The probelm with such a statement is that it lacks contextual relivance and application to the real world. For an idea to be valid it must take into account all factors relating to it; saying "take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower" is all fine and dandy until you try to account for how the tool is supposed to be taken away, which is a totally and completly relivant question since we are discussing firearms in the context of real life. Without addressing the application of the idea, the idea is nothing more than an intelectual experiment conducted under controled conditions.

cold turkey ...sure it's a bumpy ride but oh well. again:

no guns = no gun related deaths

sure sack beatings would rise exponentially but that would eventually even itself out. :E

It is a sort of intelectual fiction where some factors are ignored in order to increase the aethetic appearance of the idea.

oh that's rich coming from you ...you nitpick the smallest details and ignore the bigger picture ...didnt we drone on for 5 pages on one little sentence in Bowling for Columbine a few months back? Not very exciting

You're self-imposed impressions of me are not at all relivant to the discussion at hand. Bringing them up is a bothersome distraciton at best and shows real intelectual sloppieness at worst.

sure they're relevant, nitpicking usually involves avoiding the bigger issues forcing the debate to grind to a halt as you repeatedly deal blows to the proverbial equine :thumbs: yes I too excel at verbal gymnastics

 

[ductonius]

no guns = no gun related deaths

It's absolutly true that if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun deaths. In fact, there were no gun deaths on Earth for quite some time; I beleive for several million years after humans evolved and before guns were invented, noone died from a gunshot wound.

The probelm with such a statement is that it lacks contextual relivance and application to the real world. For an idea to be valid it must take into account all factors relating to it; saying "take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower" is all fine and dandy until you try to account for how the tool is supposed to be taken away, which is a totally and completly relivant question since we are discussing firearms in the context of real life. Without addressing the application of the idea, the idea is nothing more than an intelectual experiment conducted under controled conditions.

If you insist on simply stating the same thing over and over, without making any arguments to support it or providing any evidence of the claims veracity, there is really no reason for me to change my arguments. Should there come a time when you choose to address the issues I have brought up I will be more than happy to put some effort and time into providing a proper response but until that time comes I will not waste time retyping the same points over and over.

oh that's rich coming from you ...you nitpick the smallest details and ignore the bigger picture

I'm not sure how it's possible to "nit-pick the smallest details", out of "no guns = no gun related deaths" given that there are no detail or even a sentance and only the mechanical expression of a message.

However, your comment is totally and completly irrelivant to the argument at hand. I do not wish to rehash the arguement so if you do choose to reply and stop making personal attacks you can simply look above to see it.

sure they're relevant, nitpicking usually involves avoiding the bigger issues forcing the debate to grind to a halt as you repeatedly deal blows to the proverbial equine :thumbs: yes I too excel at verbal gymnastics

I fail to see how a persons self imposed views on the person he or she is arguing with have any relivance to the issue they are discussing. Please expaline why in general terms the impressions a debater has of his or her fellow debaters could be relivant to the truth or falsity of his or her fellow debaters arguments.

The superfluous nature of most of your comments in your reply speaks volumes about your intelectual focus in the debate. Instead of dealing with the arguements I have made you have elected to attempt to distract the issue with meaningless personal attacks and insistances that those attacks and your personal imprssions are somehow relivant.

 

[CptStern]

It's absolutly true that if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun deaths. In fact, there were no gun deaths on Earth for quite some time; I beleive for several million years after humans evolved and before guns were invented, noone died from a gunshot wound.

The probelm with such a statement is that it lacks contextual relivance and application to the real world. For an idea to be valid it must take into account all factors relating to it; saying "take the tool away and I'm sure the numbers would be substantially lower" is all fine and dandy until you try to account for how the tool is supposed to be taken away, which is a totally and completly relivant question since we are discussing firearms in the context of real life. Without addressing the application of the idea, the idea is nothing more than an intelectual experiment conducted under controled conditions.

If you insist on simply stating the same thing over and over, without making any arguments to support it or providing any evidence of the claims veracity, there is really no reason for me to change my arguments. Should there come a time when you choose to address the issues I have brought up I will be more than happy to put some effort and time into providing a proper response but until that time comes I will not waste time retyping the same points over and over.



I'm not sure how it's possible to "nit-pick the smallest details", out of "no guns = no gun related deaths" given that there are no detail or even a sentance and only the mechanical expression of a message.

However, your comment is totally and completly irrelivant to the argument at hand. I do not wish to rehash the arguement so if you do choose to reply and stop making personal attacks you can simply look above to see it.



I fail to see how a persons self imposed views on the person he or she is arguing with have any relivance to the issue they are discussing. Please expaline why in general terms the impressions a debater has of his or her fellow debaters could be relivant to the truth or falsity of his or her fellow debaters arguments.

The superfluous nature of most of your comments in your reply speaks volumes about your intelectual focus in the debate. Instead of dealing with the arguements I have made you have elected to attempt to distract the issue with meaningless personal attacks and insistances that those attacks and your personal imprssions are somehow relivant.

what points? you've made one point: "acquaintances are'nt always known" ...you beat this point to friggin death ..why dont I answer your statements? because they are all variations of the same thing "guns dont kill, people kill"

Frankly I dont enjoy debating with you as the pace tends to rival that of watching cement dry. I've wasted enough of my time discussing one aspect of this issue ...frankly there's no gaining ground if your opponent wont concede that the proliferation of guns is directly responsible for the US's higher than average murder rate.

btw you are uncharacteristically canadian, are you an army brat? or a hunter/gun collector?

 

[Recoil]

I hate the XM-8...

 

[ductonius]

what points? you've made one point: "acquaintances are'nt always known"

The "point" you attribute to me is not a point at all but rather a statement of fact. Aquaintances are not people that a person knows very well.

Points are conclutions, not facts. Facts support points/conclutions but are not in and of themselves points.

The point I was trying to make was that with a slightly different view on the data it appears that a person is more likely to be killed by a person they dont know or know well than a person they do know well. This was to counter the point you tried to make that a person is more likely to be killed by someone he or she "knows".

After that I tried to make the point that the data you provided on the %age of murderes committed by guns did not support your statement about the reduction of gun murders.

After that I made the point that assumptions do not make a statement speculative since the sample size was so large.

After that I made the point that your statement "guns kill!" ignored the context of reality that the discussion was set in.

After that I made the point that it's impossible to nitpick details of a detailess statement such as "no guns = no gun related deaths".

I could go on, but I'll stop. I think I've made my point.

Just so you dont miss this one: I have made point after point which you have not replied to and have simply ignored.

Also, if you want to now respond to my points, please respond to the origonal arguments and not the summaries here since the summaries lack the subtleties of the origonal points.

..you beat this point to friggin death

I've actually only mentioned it once, in my first reply to you in this topic.

..why dont I answer your statements? because they are all variations of the same thing "guns dont kill, people kill"

I dont remember having argued anything of the kind in this thread. Please be careful to avoid attributing other poeples arguments to me.

Frankly I dont enjoy debating with you as the pace tends to rival that of watching cement dry.

If you dont mind mixed (get it, cement - mixed, ah ha ha ha) metaphors.

...frankly there's no gaining ground if your opponent wont concede that the proliferation of guns is directly responsible for the US's higher than average murder rate.

The problem is that you have provided absolutly no evidence to support that. None. Zip. Zero.

That statement is pure and total opinion.

I wont concede that your opinion is correct? Well no kidding. Who'da thought that could be?

btw you are uncharacteristically canadian, are you an army brat? or a hunter/gun collector?

Nope, worse. I'm from BC.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I can just picture a comercial with kids with waterguns.

Then replace those waterguns with XM8's

I wouldn't notice a difference.
The XM8 seriously looks like a supersoaker without the neon-green water tank.

 

[CptStern]

The "point" you attribute to me is not a point at all but rather a statement of fact. Aquaintances are not people that a person knows very well.

Points are conclutions, not facts. Facts support points/conclutions but are not in and of themselves points.

The point I was trying to make was that with a slightly different view on the data it appears that a person is more likely to be killed by a person they dont know or know well than a person they do know well. This was to counter the point you tried to make that a person is more likely to be killed by someone he or she "knows".


After that I tried to make the point that the data you provided on the %age of murderes committed by guns did not support your statement about the reduction of gun murders.

After that I made the point that assumptions do not make a statement speculative since the sample size was so large.

After that I made the point that your statement "guns kill!" ignored the context of reality that the discussion was set in.

After that I made the point that it's impossible to nitpick details of a detailess statement such as "no guns = no gun related deaths".

I could go on, but I'll stop. I think I've made my point.

Just so you dont miss this one: I have made point after point which you have not replied to and have simply ignored.

Also, if you want to now respond to my points, please respond to the origonal arguments and not the summaries here since the summaries lack the subtleties of the origonal points.




I've actually only mentioned it once, in my first reply to you in this topic.



I dont remember having argued anything of the kind in this thread. Please be careful to avoid attributing other poeples arguments to me.

If you dont mind mixed (get it, cement - mixed, ah ha ha ha) metaphors.

The problem is that you have provided absolutly no evidence to support that. None. Zip. Zero.

That statement is pure and total opinion.

I wont concede that your opinion is correct? Well no kidding. Who'da thought that could be?

splitting hairs

strang·er :
1) One who is neither a friend nor an acquaintance.

ac·quain·tance:

Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship.

the pie chart is clear ..if the FBI thought an acquaintance was the same thing as a stranger then they would have made that distinction. I really dont know why you think you can re-interpret the data: it says what it says ..until you can prove to the people who created the pie chart that an acquaintance is the same as a stranger I'll be taking their word over yours ...and their data supports my claims ...this is the last time I answer any questions related to this ...dont ask, I wont respond ..this is what I mean of you taking a trivial, insignificant interpretation of facts and twisting it to your purpose.

Nope, worse. I'm from BC.

I'll take that as "all three"

 

[SIGbastard]

Your wrong. You never made a valid point. Guns will never go away so your No Guns=No Gun Deaths is a pretty useless and empty statement.

 

[SIGbastard]

Originally Posted by CptStern
...frankly there's no gaining ground if your opponent wont concede that the proliferation of guns is directly responsible for the US's higher than average murder rate.QUOTE]

There are other countries that have a "proliferation" of guns that don't have the murder rates of America. Canadians for one can have many guns that Americans can't. They do have stricter magazine laws but otherwise they can have assault weapons and the like. I would love a Sig 551 like you can get in Canada (I could get one in the U.S. if it was imported before 1989, but very few were and the going price is over $10,000 because of the rarity of them). Switzerland has less restrictive gun laws than the US and has one of the lowest gun related death rates in a modern country. There are many other examples, but you seem to ignore them. It just goes to show that guns are not the problem, but of course they will be prevalent where violence problems exist. If americans were taught from an early age to respect firearms and how to handle them safely I assure you gun deaths would drop way down. You like many liberals however have an irrational fear of guns and cannot see past this fear to accept this. Instead you want to ban something that never created a problem in the first place. That is not to say that gun deaths are not a problem, but guns did not create deaths. They are merely tools.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/xm8-poster.jpg

My god, thats the most modular weapons system i've ever seen... ever. Yet if you've read about it it's still the most easy to operate and field strip / clean and is more rugged for sand / jungle combat etc. I hate guns and killing but damn.. this could kill alot of ****ers.

that thing is a pistol/smg/mounted mg/scoped smg/scoped pistol/sniper/ and supports barrel clips :| wow.. that thing is going to kill alot of people some day.

yOU GO TO RELOAD, AND THE WHOLE THING FALLS APART