C0nc0rdance Gun control vid

[nilecroc]

Concordance says that gun ownership is decreasing and even though the number of guns are increasing people owning them are decreasing. Anyone have any stats?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

That is a completely irrelevant point. Gun ownership declining does equal justification for gun control. It also does not state the reason why it is declining.  People like concordance seem to have a ban boner, where anything they should be banned, in his case drugs and guns.

[Skm1091]

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]

another vid

[Ibrahim90]

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]

another vid

he clearly doesn't understand it is irrelevant what the potential for collateral damage is: the same argument could be taken to the most absurd levels, and be applicable to knives, rocks, ladders, hammers, swords, etc.

further, unlike a grenade, a rifle can and is very useful for self defense.

[Skm1091]

he clearly doesn't understand it is irrelevant what the potential for collateral damage is: the same argument could be taken to the most absurd levels, and be applicable to knives, rocks, ladders, hammers, swords, etc.

further, unlike a grenade, a rifle can and is very useful for self defense.

Technically a grenade can by used in a defensive way. Ever heard of Grenade trip wires? Guerrilla fighters would attach wires to pins and an unsuspecting idiot, such as an enemy trying to attack their base ect, trips it and then....... BOOM!

[Ibrahim90]

Technically a grenade can by used in a defensive way. Ever heard of Grenade trip wires? Guerrilla fighters would attach wires to pins and an unsuspecting idiot, such as an enemy trying to attack their base ect, trips it and then....... BOOM!

I concede the point.

either way, his argument is still shit.

[evensgrey]

Technically a grenade can by used in a defensive way. Ever heard of Grenade trip wires? Guerrilla fighters would attach wires to pins and an unsuspecting idiot, such as an enemy trying to attack their base ect, trips it and then....... BOOM!

And that's far from the only way, either.

The grenade pictured is, in fact, a defensive one.  (The assumption is that the defender has at least some kind of minimal defensive structure like a foxhole, so the shrapnel from the grenade explosion is not as much of an issue as it is for the much less protected attacker.)

[Skm1091]

And that's far from the only way, either.

The grenade pictured is, in fact, a defensive one.  (The assumption is that the defender has at least some kind of minimal defensive structure like a foxhole, so the shrapnel from the grenade explosion is not as much of an issue as it is for the much less protected attacker.)

Claymore anyone 

[nilecroc]

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]

another vid

The description is even funnier. "I'm someone who opposes all gun ownership". Which means he'll have you kidnapped by people with guns and locked up so he can feel safer. Of course if you can't have a gun, then you can't have anything thing that can be considered a weapon.

[Skm1091]

The description is even funnier. "I'm someone who opposes all gun ownership". Which means he'll have you kidnapped by people with guns and locked up so he can feel safer. Of course if you can't have a gun, then you can't have anything thing that can be considered a weapon.

I think you have misread it.

Heres the full description with the part you misread in bold.

"The Hand Grenade Test" is a rhetorical device I use with friends and family to convey the simple idea that all weapons are not equal: some have design features that make them inappropriate for self-defense use. Hand grenades and C4 have a high potential for misuse and little to no potential for legitimate defensive use.

I understand that [assault weapons] are a contentious issue among gun owners, in spite of being a low percentage of total gun ownership. The "Feinstein definition" is often mocked and parodied, and I agree some of the definitions seem disconnected to reality, but the idea that some weapons have a greater misuse potential than their use can support.

I am not someone who opposes all gun ownership, but smart regulation can prevent misuse of weapons by people intending to harm the innocent.

[Travis Retriever]

I think you have misread it.

Heres the full description with the part you misread in bold.

Regarding the bolded part, gotta love vague, never to be usefully defined terms like "smart regulations".  Every regulation was thought to be 'smart' by someone in government, or it wouldn't have been added to the federal registry to begin with.  Also, I think he means 'laws'?  I thought it was laws that are made regarding gun control. If it were regulations, wouldn't all adults be submitting paperwork every month or whatever to prove they don't have guns or whatever?

[Travis Retriever]

I nearly vomited in my mouth when I saw this comment from the video's OP:
"Currently I have a 0.22 bolt-action rifle I got for my 9th birthday and an heirloom WWII service shotgun my grandfather used in the Air Reserves. I gave my Dad back a M&P40c .40S&W he'd given me when I went to college."
Hypocrite alert.

[Skm1091]

another vid.

[yt]dYHXayOEHZ8[/yt]

[Skm1091]

skm1091 "Your saying if you have a chance to shoot the rapist you should not and let him (or her) have their way with you."

I never even got close to saying anything that would even be tangentially related to it, so no. I didn't, and could not possibly, say that you should OR shouldn't. None of what I said, has any relevance to your question, thus making it nonsensical.

"I quoted that one because that's the study you guys quote the most."

Who are these "you guys", you speak of?
You assume that I look at defunct studies ...but you have no idea what studies I have looked at. You have no idea what my sources are. You simply choose to assume that my sources are certain specific ones you know about, because they are defunct. (or at least, you believe them to be)
I have never even heard of the Arthur L Kellerman study. Is it really used most often, by gun control advocates, or is it that you've heard that it's the study that gun control advocates use?
It's a very old study and one of the many studies he has done on the subject. I would argue that the main place, where you would find the Arthur L Kellerman study, is among those who are anti-gun control.
To cherry-pick that study to attack, as a strawman, seems fairly pathetic.

I look for scientific studies on the subject. I find that they say that you are safer without a gun, than with.
For some sources, just Google for peer reviewed studies (preferably meta-analyses) on the subject
...or take a look at the Harvard School of Public Health's Harvard Injury Control Research Center: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/ (note, this is a collection of studies and meta-analyses)

Which peer-reviewed studies do you base your claims on?

As to your number... I never questioned them, or even addressed them, in any way, whatsoever. Why? Because they are not relevant.

Anyone got a list of studies I can refer to?

[dallen68]

Anyone got a list of studies I can refer to?

About the effects of gun control? About whether or not you should shoot the rapist?

There's links elsewhere on this forum for the former.

Due to the nature of the second, it would be kinda hard to find a peer reviewed paper on it. I guess 2.5 seconds worth of bing would bring up about all the considered opinion you can handle.

[Skm1091]

About the effects of gun control? About whether or not you should shoot the rapist?

There's links elsewhere on this forum for the former.

Due to the nature of the second, it would be kinda hard to find a peer reviewed paper on it. I guess 2.5 seconds worth of bing would bring up about all the considered opinion you can handle.

I need studies that counter his claim about it being more dangerous to fight back with a gun.