3 ms·

If your whole argument rests on the words of a constitution, I don't know what to tell you. I still stand by my argument and have provided several sources in do

by rooshdi 14y ago

If your whole argument rests on the words of a constitution, I don't know what to tell you. I still stand by my argument and have provided several sources in doing so.

bmelton 14y ago
If you would summarize that as the gist of my argument, then you clearly did not read it. That portions of my argument rest on the precedence of case law, is appropriate. Legal decisions in this country are generally decided on exactly that, and not the half-cocked rhetoric you put forth. For what it's worth, I could put forth statistics that show that guns are used to deter crime at a rate of 80 times the rate with which they are used to commit crime. I could put forth statistics of how many lives were saved the by presence of a firearm. I can show other factors that would mitigate gun crime far and above the proposed legislation. If we're really going to ignore the Constitution though, why would we ban rifles at all, when the sweeping majority of gun crime is done using handguns? Why not ban those? If we're trying to save lives, then why look at guns at all? Why not ban alcohol, or automobiles, or things that contribute to heart disease (the leading cause of death in the US), or foods contributing to Diabetes, or poisonous toxins. All of these contribute to more deaths than guns. In 2011, more deaths were attributable to blunt objects than rifles - should be ban heavy things?
- rooshdi 14y ago
  I did read it. Ultimately, you have to look at the purpose of certain tools and their net effect on society. I respect the debate and will leave you with these last few resources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-debate_b_2389047.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-deba... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179166/-Cars-kill-people-so-quit-picking-on-guns http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179166/-Cars-kill-...
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive. That crazy people might misuse them is statistically no more reason to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw hammers or baseball bats. All that said, I'll end this debate as you obviously aren't in any position to prove your assertions and are happy to sit in the umbrella that "Guns are bad, mmkay?" If you'd like to actually debate the position, I'd be happy to, but thus far you haven't indicated to me that you're capable. Edit: Actually, I take that back. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who has admitted they don't care about law while simultaneously advocating that the law be used to curtail a Constitutionally enumerated right.
    - rooshdi 14y ago
      "I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive." This Harvard study doesn't think so: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and... Also, read this for your other arguments: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p1/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments... Good debate. I gotta finish work on some software now. Take care sir. Edit for your edit about rights: http://youtu.be/bx71U-1O-eY http://youtu.be/bx71U-1O-eY
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]

by rooshdi 14y ago

If your whole argument rests on the words of a constitution, I don't know what to tell you. I still stand by my argument and have provided several sources in doing so.

bmelton 14y ago

If you would summarize that as the gist of my argument, then you clearly did not read it. That portions of my argument rest on the precedence of case law, is appropriate. Legal decisions in this country are generally decided on exactly that, and not the half-cocked rhetoric you put forth. For what it's worth, I could put forth statistics that show that guns are used to deter crime at a rate of 80 times the rate with which they are used to commit crime. I could put forth statistics of how many lives were saved the by presence of a firearm. I can show other factors that would mitigate gun crime far and above the proposed legislation. If we're really going to ignore the Constitution though, why would we ban rifles at all, when the sweeping majority of gun crime is done using handguns? Why not ban those? If we're trying to save lives, then why look at guns at all? Why not ban alcohol, or automobiles, or things that contribute to heart disease (the leading cause of death in the US), or foods contributing to Diabetes, or poisonous toxins. All of these contribute to more deaths than guns. In 2011, more deaths were attributable to blunt objects than rifles - should be ban heavy things?

rooshdi 14y ago
I did read it. Ultimately, you have to look at the purpose of certain tools and their net effect on society. I respect the debate and will leave you with these last few resources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-debate_b_2389047.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-deba... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179166/-Cars-kill-people-so-quit-picking-on-guns http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179166/-Cars-kill-...
- bmelton 14y ago
  I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive. That crazy people might misuse them is statistically no more reason to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw hammers or baseball bats. All that said, I'll end this debate as you obviously aren't in any position to prove your assertions and are happy to sit in the umbrella that "Guns are bad, mmkay?" If you'd like to actually debate the position, I'd be happy to, but thus far you haven't indicated to me that you're capable. Edit: Actually, I take that back. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who has admitted they don't care about law while simultaneously advocating that the law be used to curtail a Constitutionally enumerated right.
  - rooshdi 14y ago
    "I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive." This Harvard study doesn't think so: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and... Also, read this for your other arguments: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p1/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments... Good debate. I gotta finish work on some software now. Take care sir. Edit for your edit about rights: http://youtu.be/bx71U-1O-eY http://youtu.be/bx71U-1O-eY
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]