Divorce Agreement

[Dreadnought[dA]]

I generally find liberal extremities to be more tolerable than conservative ones, if only for the reason that I'd rather a person that doesn't get anything done than a person that ends up doing something incredibly stupid, and a person that's easily subject to cultural trends than a person that will never change his opinion.

Ok so I think everyone is getting Liberals and Conservatives mixed up because I guess U.S. definition differs.

 

[Captain Griffen]

I appreciate moral values and tradition, I also believe we need to change things for green.

Belief in liberty / freedom is a moral value; far more than the dogma of 'porn's bad!', for example, which you display below.

I think welfare programs are taken advantage of too much. I think the rich evade taxes too much. Liberals I fear will eventually destroy all moral values and society will become a perverted blob of porn and fat people (too late).

You have people dying because they're poor and thus cannot afford relatively simple health care. You don't get to talk about welfare programmes.

Liberals, as discussed above, won't destroy all moral values, as they'll continue to go for liberty (however, most people don't value liberty until it's gone).

Liberals also think raising minimum wage will actually help the economy.

Labour market imperfections actually mean this probably makes perfect sense, through a variety of reasons. Also it has a social benefit (ie: people can actually live off their wages), and, since the poor don't evade / avoid tax so much, probably increases tax revenue.

So mainly I just have problems with conservatives disregard for the environment and supporting the wealthy just a little too much.

Just a little too much? Like far too far. And all of their massive budget deficits (oh dear god, Reagan, how did you manage that as a small government advocate?). Oh, and their wars.

 

[Gilles]

This entire thread seems to be a huge cesspool of generalization.

I generally find liberal extremities to be more tolerable than conservative ones, if only for the reason that I'd rather a person that doesn't get anything done than a person that ends up doing something incredibly stupid, and a person that's easily subject to cultural trends than a person that will never change his opinion.

Saying, "...ends up doing something incredibly stupid" insinuates that conservatives change things, which is exactly what they don't do, as you point out in your last sentence. As well, you say that liberals don't "get anything done", but in my experience Liberals are always trying to change things, ie. bring in more freedom.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Saying, "...ends up doing something incredibly stupid" insinuates that conservatives change things, which is exactly what they don't do, as you point out in your last sentence. As well, you say that liberals don't "get anything done", but in my experience Liberals are always trying to change things, ie. bring in more freedom.

...so the conservatives in America are for Roe vs Wade?

And need I mention Iraq...?

 

[Gilles]

This is true, I didn't think of war. As well, I'm thinking more along the lines of Canadian politics.
Roe vs Wade, the conservatives were trying to keep the law, no? Liberals wanted to change it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Stateside, conservatives would be generally Christians, pro-gun, anti-abortion, small government, minimal taxes etc. Liberals would be anti-gun, pro-abortion, large government, social health care, etc.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Roe vs Wade, the conservatives were trying to keep the law, no? Liberals wanted to change it.

Roe vs. Wade was quite a long time ago now. Conservatives should be trying to keep the status quo. Unless, of course, you feel they should be against black rights in the south, which was almost the same length back in time?

 

[Gilles]

You've lost me CG, sorry.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Reductio ad absurdum proof that you may as well ignore names of political blocs, they mean nothing.

 

[Ghan_04]

Stateside, conservatives would be generally Christians, pro-gun, anti-abortion, small government, minimal taxes etc. Liberals would be anti-gun, pro-abortion, large government, social health care, etc.

And Libertarians would be atheists, pro-gun, pro-abortion, small government, minimal taxes, no social health care, etc.
That pretty much sums up where I am.

 

[PurplePoot]

Libertarians seem to dramatically underestimate the value and point of taxation, and the practicality of socialized health care for both the individual and the society. Meh.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Libertarians have a very sad, lonely, desolate, and entirely pathetic conception of liberty.

 

[Elenai]

And Libertarians would be atheists, pro-gun, pro-abortion, small government, minimal taxes, no social health care, etc.
That pretty much sums up where I am.

What would you call a Christian, pro-gun control, pro-life, large government, fair tax, pro-socialized health care, anti-political correctness, pro-international trade, pro-green, environmentalist?

 

[Arvedui]

What would you call a Christian, pro-gun control, pro-life, large government, fair tax, pro-socialized health care, anti-political correctness, pro-international trade, pro-green, environmentalist?

Confused.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

pro-green & environmentalist just got me... Pro-gun control = Pro-stupidity

It sounds oh so wonderful but it will never work, ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA.

If you really want to accomplish something, how about investing that money into killing drugs since that's probably most of crime. (Or you could legalize all drugs)

 

[Teh_Ephy]

And that explains why I've heard that libertarians are farther right than the average conservative. Not to say that in an offensive manner if I accidentally come off as offensive.

 

[PurplePoot]

pro-green & environmentalist just got me... Pro-gun control = Pro-stupidity

It sounds oh so wonderful but it will never work, ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA.

If you really want to accomplish something, how about investing that money into killing drugs since that's probably most of crime. (Or you could legalize all drugs)

BRB, denying reality.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

BRB, denying reality.

That could mean a lot of things, but judging by what you usually say, I'm going to have to go with you thinking what I said is ridiculous.

 

[PurplePoot]

That could mean a lot of things, but judging by what you usually say, I'm going to have to go with you thinking what I said is ridiculous.

I believe you are misusing the word "thinking" to imply what I say is not fact. You can say gun control doesn't work as much as you want, but reality suggests otherwise.

 

[leet.firefox]

I love the OP for his bravery.

It does not take bravery to paste some text.

Big SUVs and trucks are part of the problem.

The only problem is human stupidity.

Pro-gun control = Pro-stupidity

Gun control has been proven to work. But "The very plain, unsexy answer to the debate is that gun control is illegal, unconstitutional, and against everything America stood for when it was formed."

I think the rich evade taxes too much

The wealthy pay a huge amount of tax. There are few exceptions. If you think otherwise you have been misguided.

Liberals I fear will eventually destroy all moral value

Just no.

So mainly I just have problems with conservatives disregard for the environment

Conservatives want a clean environment as much as the next person, but they are not purists. They don't exactly crave the idea of driving America's living condition back 20 years to favor some insignificant environmental gain.

 

[PurplePoot]

Gun control has been proven to work. But "The very plain, unsexy answer to the debate is that gun control is illegal, unconstitutional, and against everything America stood for when it was formed."

Illegal: What?
Unconstitutional: That's because you people rather liberally interpret your constitution.
Against what you stood for when you formed: A) Who cares? B) See Unconstitutional.

Conservatives want a clean environment as much as the next person, but they are not purists. They don't exactly crave the idea of driving America's living condition back 20 years to favor some insignificant environmental gain.

I can rhetorically misrepresent issues too. You don't have to push living conditions back, you just have to change them.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Gun control would work about as well as drug control is working in Mexico right now. NOT AT ALL! Although I think we could control drugs a little better in U.S. if it wasn't for the fact A LOT of people actually want them (Who knows why). About 1/4th the people at my college smoke (WTF this is the 21st century) and I know about 1/2 of them probably dabble in mary.
Since were thinking about legalizing it doesn't help at all.

Just because gun control works in some countries doesn't mean it will work in others. Whatever country you live in that has gun control probably never had more than one gun per 20 people. The U.S. however has about one gun per person. I own 3 myself, really nice ones too (although not so nice for anyone on the receiving end).

 

[Mor)L(unE]

Last news there never had war on american territory (excluding civil war).So you mean protecting your way of life in other people's country.

Oh well, there will be if they would split of, then we would have Israel2, conflict goes america.

 

[Moontraveler]

We've been in this argument for more than thirty years.

Personally I haven't seen the political issues change since the 1960s...

 

[Captain Griffen]

Canada has more guns than the USA per head, and less murders. And Switzerland? They all have rifles. Or they get fined. Srs bsnss.

American society is just screwed up.

Oh, and libertarians are economically very right wing, and also very strong on individual negative liberty.

 

[PurplePoot]

Gun control would work about as well as drug control is working in Mexico right now. NOT AT ALL! Although I think we could control drugs a little better in U.S. if it wasn't for the fact A LOT of people actually want them (Who knows why). About 1/4th the people at my college smoke (WTF this is the 21st century) and I know about 1/2 of them probably dabble in mary.
Since were thinking about legalizing it doesn't help at all.

Well, the fact that a lot of first-world nations have gun control and it works leaves this point as bullshit.

And no shit drugs would go away if people didn't want them...

Just because gun control works in some countries doesn't mean it will work in others. Whatever country you live in that has gun control probably never had more than one gun per 20 people. The U.S. however has about one gun per person. I own 3 myself, really nice ones too (although not so nice for anyone on the receiving end).

The reason you have so many guns is because you don't have gun control. Way to be circular.

Also, gun control doesn't mean no guns. For example, you can get certified here to get a hunting rifle without a great deal of effort, but a pistol is nearly impossible to get since there's little reason to own one as a civilian other than to kill people (which is also clearly illegal).

 

[oh_snap]

Poot, you can't exactly carry, and I mean that in the literal sense, around a long arm for use in self defense. And that limits it to home use and perhaps vehicle. Pistols have the availability for concealment purposes that long arms lack. I think perhaps the standards to get a concealed/pistol license should be up'd, but not impossible. It's quite easy to get a concealed license in my state, and I don't believe that's entirely the brightest thing to do.

~Snap

 

[Captain Griffen]

Poot, you can't exactly carry, and I mean that in the literal sense, around a long arm for use in self defense.

That's kind of the point. You cannot conceal them.

 

[PurplePoot]

Poot, you can't exactly carry, and I mean that in the literal sense, around a long arm for use in self defense.

That's why they're for hunting, not self defence.

Pistols have the availability for concealment purposes that long arms lack.

Hence why they are illegal.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I believe you are misusing the word "thinking" to imply what I say is not fact. You can say gun control doesn't work as much as you want, but reality suggests otherwise.

Poot, American reality is several shades of stupid compared to the rest of the world. Griffen said it himself. If gun control works for the rest of the world, cool. Countries get big egos when they play big parts in the victories of big wars. I can personally vouch that excessive egos (combined with mild paranoia, don't ask how that works) generally result in irrationality, and I'm sure most psychologists would agree. If you can be relatively certain that someone is going around with a concealed weapon, having a concealed weapon to protect yourself, while not necessarily being the best idea, is definitely not the worst idea.

 

[Captain Griffen]

If you can be relatively certain that someone is going around with a concealed weapon, having a concealed weapon to protect yourself, while not necessarily being the best idea, is definitely not the worst idea.

Or you could have anyone with a concealed weapon be taken out by a police sniper. And hey, guess what? People stop carrying around concealed weapons, and gun related deaths go way down.

Plus I'm fairly sure owning a gun massively increases the chance of someone in your household getting shot.

 

[oh_snap]

So guns should not be used for self defense?

~Snap

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Or you could have anyone with a concealed weapon be taken out by a police sniper. And hey, guess what? People stop carrying around concealed weapons, and gun related deaths go way down.

Plus I'm fairly sure owning a gun massively increases the chance of someone in your household getting shot.

I'm pretty sure that half of everybody flips the fuck out when the government uses preemptive violence in any way shape or justifiable form.

Also, most American cities try to maintain around 1 police officer per 1000 civilians, you're not going to have the staff to be able to stick a police sniper on every other rooftop.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Poot, your being retarded, there are soo many guns in circulation already in the U.S. that if you were to implement gun control now it wouldn't work. Countries with gun control don't have the amount of guns the U.S. does, THEREFORE IT WORKS. Stop being an idiot and understand that when you have a billion guns, you can't get rid of them all as easily as when you only have a thousand.

 

[Captain Griffen]

I'm pretty sure that half of everybody flips the fuck out when the government uses preemptive violence in any way shape or justifiable form.

How is it preemptive? Carrying a concealed weapon is/would be highly illegal.

Also, most American cities try to maintain around 1 police officer per 1000 civilians, you're not going to have the staff to be able to stick a police sniper on every other rooftop.

People report it. It's hard to conceal a weapon 100% reliably. Plus the fact you're liable to get shot is itself a major deterrant.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

How is it preemptive? Carrying a concealed weapon is/would be highly illegal.


People report it. It's hard to conceal a weapon 100% reliably. Plus the fact you're liable to get shot is itself a major deterrant.

I'll look it up on Youtube, but if you know what you're doing, you can keep a sawed-off shotgun on what looks like relatively tight clothing without anybody ever knowing.

 

[Ghan_04]

I think part of the problem is when you make something illegal, then the situation turns into only the criminals having guns.
Drugs are illegal in many places, so the people who have them are the ones that have little problem breaking the law. The same would be true of gun control. You cannot have complete control over guns in a country. Thus it is more dangerous to the citizens as a whole to not permit guns since they would have increased risk.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

 

[PurplePoot]

Wrong, Ghan, as mentioned several times countries with gun control have far less crime rates than the US of A.

Dreadnought, the reason you have so many guns is because you're too busy whining about how many guns you already have to do anything about it.

 

[Ghan_04]

Part of the reason that the citizens should have guns is to maintain fear of the citizens on the part of the government. I think citizens need the ability to protect themselves from the tyranny of government. The very nature of most government is that they try to increase their own power over the populace.
On a purely philosophical front, I think it is wrong to deny people the right to bear arms. I am not in favor of no gun laws at all, but I think it is easy to go too far here.

 

[PurplePoot]

Part of the reason that the citizens should have guns is to maintain fear of the citizens on the part of the government. I think citizens need the ability to protect themselves from the tyranny of government. The very nature of most government is that they try to increase their own power over the populace.

What tyranny of government? You're living in the first world, Ghan. In fact, the US of A is right on the edge due to the population and the governments that population elects.

On a purely philosophical front, I think it is wrong to deny people the right to bear arms. I am not in favor of no gun laws at all, but I think it is easy to go too far here.

Seeing as there is no practical reason for them to carry weapons and plenty not to, I don't see why you hold that position, but meh.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Pistols have no philosophically sound purpose. Their only reason is for shooting people, and the state damned well can interfer with you interferring with others.

As for keeping the government in fear, just...lol. I mean, seriously, lol. Have you seen how corrupt and screwed up the American government is? And the people have a large proportion of nutters, always. Having the government afraid of the small proportion of the population who are stupid enough to carry arms and thus endanger their children is really not good.

Evidence for gun control laws cutting down on murders with guns? If anything, it makes the murder rate with guns skyrocket, as robbers shoot first, and don't ask questions later, because if they don't, they'll get shot. Whereas in the UK, shooting people is a Really Really Bad Move, as instead of people just handing the stuff over and then being insured, and there being somewhat of a police response, you have the whole country searching for you. The added risk of being shot makes it so much wiser to just shoot people...

 

[Teh_Ephy]

YouTube Video, ignore the ridiculous title.
Watch. He's not even wearing particularly baggy clothing. The shotgun is obviously (I hope) exaggerated, but any determined criminal could hide a legal weapon in their clothes. And listen to that lady drone on, it's ridiculous, but if they're making a serious Youtube video about it, it's a problem somewhere.

 

[PurplePoot]

The point is if you don't think they'll shoot back you won't shoot in the first place.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

But it's easier to wave a gun around and threaten people if you know/believe that they aren't going to shoot back.

 

[PurplePoot]

I'd rather have a gun waved at me than be shot. Wouldn't you?

Anyhow, we don't need to get into philosophical debate about this. As has been continuously pointed out, first-world countries with gun control consistently fare better than the US of A in terms of violent crime.

 

[aaron]

fail.....

 

[TheDivineBoss]

I'd rather have a gun waved at me than be shot. Wouldn't you?

Anyhow, we don't need to get into philosophical debate about this. As has been continuously pointed out, first-world countries with gun control consistently fare better than the US of A in terms of violent crime.

True true, look at my country, we got no guns but we do kill people with cars.

fail.....

Fail at the topic or fail at the Poot-post?

 

[Hakeem]

I like how people that tell at me to learn to take a joke, are trying to defend Liberals, even though this is just a joke.

You noticed that too eh?

The guy who posted that on his blog was not joking.

I'm very curious as to how you have come to conclude that.

---

There were also some comments about bad science around this quote period. I'd like to cite [POST=1117874]the table[/POST] and note that it was created before reading any of this thread. I'd like to note the consistency of the "Logical Person" row with reality. Those of us that live without gun control justify it "logically" in our minds and those of us with gun control justify is "logically" in our minds.

I'd like to note Poot's bad science and Griffen's incomplete logic. I thought you guys were better than that. Though in the [THREAD=124386]other[/THREAD] thread Poot did have a comment about correlation not implying causation, I'm not going to take the time too look up his post times and whatnot, but it still stands. Even if you later corrected yourself, I still thought you were already at a higher level than that.

Think about this for example - how is your ownership of land enhancing liberty? It may enhance your liberty over the land, but for everyone else in the world, it destroys their liberty. Now, if I were to go and try and camp on "your" lawn, what would happen? Oh, and I have 20 armed guards, so don't bother trying to turf me off yourself. So what's to stop me?

My 40 armed guards. The snipers are probably enough though. See, if you are camping on my lawn, and I had plans there, you are infringing on my right to do what I was doing there. Surely we have equal rights to do whatever it is we are doing there. We cannot do these things at the same time. Who takes precedence?

I'm not going to bother giving and answer, and neither should you. The scenario should be fully prepared to be processed in any mind.

We have equal rights, but we cannot share those rights simultaneously.

I believe the concept of ownership was invented to address this specific dilemma. Further extensions are shared ownership and other complex agreements. I should research this more; this is just my initial opinion.

it's hilarious only if you find stupidity and ignorance hilarious then you must be stupid as well.

It would seem as if you mean to call humor itself a defect of stupid people.

How is it preemptive? Carrying a concealed weapon is/would be highly illegal.

Breaking the law does not justify being killed. It would seem you are temporarily caught in the perception that the law defines morality, not the other way 'round. Furthermore, if you shoot someone before they have used their gun for manslaughter, that is preemptive. You also assume the people that are allowed to use the weapons to execute the law are "moral" people. This is a very dangerous assumption to make because it gives you a false sense of security. When people realize they are not secure as they thought, they tend to panic and open that can of worms.

Plus the fact you're liable to get shot is itself a major deterrant.

That why no gun control works. If everyone has a gun, people are a lot more likely to not try to use a weapon for nefarious purposes. This holds greater truth that the scenario whereby a select group of people are the ones holding guns. The less people who holds guns, the lesser the danger involved in doing things that harm other people.

Wrong, Ghan, as mentioned several times countries with gun control have far less crime rates than the US of A.

I'm not sure whether or not you still hold this to be a truth, but others might, and debate in this context is a spectator sport. You attribute it to guns, when it could be any of a number of causes. Laws and regulations are not the only causes either.

Bad Science: Lack of control group.

What tyranny of government?

You're kidding right? Either that or you are dangerously uninformed with regards to history. As someone who prefers to think critically, it is your duty to be one of the people who knows history, so as to not have the negative of it repeat.

there is no practical reason for them to carry weapons

Pistols have no philosophically sound purpose.

That you two have made these statements, supports my conclusion that people are terrible logicians. I just didn't think you guys were...

Their only reason is for shooting people

They also serve as a powerful deterrent to potential assailants.

and the state damned well can interfer with you interferring with others.

Except in the scenario that the state itself is a problem, which you would be a fool not to seriously consider. If you and Poot are playing dumb to history, I'm very hesitant to buy it.

Have you seen how corrupt and screwed up the American government is?

Fat lot of good that corruption does, they can't enforce much of it at all. What they do manage to enforce... People are quite resilient. They can put up with a whole lot.

robbers shoot first, and don't ask questions later, because if they don't, they'll get shot. [...] The added risk of being shot makes it so much wiser to just shoot people...

I'm not following your presumed criminal logic. I think the logic of a criminal in a world full of guns goes something like this:
"As soon as I pull this trigger, I'm going to die. No question. If only people had less guns... >:3"

I'd rather have a gun waved at me than be shot. Wouldn't you?

Yes. However, we disagree on how humans work. You attribute gun control to the waving, whereas I attribute it to the world without gun control. Similarly, you attribute being shot to the world without gun control, and I attribute it to the one without guns.

The logic for my perspective can be found in [POST=1117874]the table[/POST], with the addition that the ability to shoot without being shot in turn is inversely proportional to the amount of guns aimed at you. That is, the larger the number of guns aimed at you, the lower your safety. The lower the number of guns aimed at you, the higher your safety.

If I am to be a logician, I presume your logic to be something like so:

Gun control

Gun freedom

The criminal will only wave his gun at me. No, scratch that. I'm not following your logic here.

As per Hakeem's logic, I am less safe because there is a greater number of guns aimed at me. The logic here coincides with that of the "Paranoid Person." You perceive that all carries of weapons are aiming at you, with the possible exception of law enforcement officials. This is not true because humans evolved a powerful sense of species survival, and law enforcement officials are no more trustworthy than average citizens. They possess only the ability to be more corrupt, for the simple fact that power corrupts, and positions of power attract corrupt people. If the average citizen is the type of person that you would expect to shoot you in their stupidity, then the law enforcement officials in that same area can only be worse.

As has been continuously pointed out, first-world countries with gun control consistently fare better than the US of A in terms of violent crime.

Aside from it being Bad Science^TM, ^{[citation needed]}.

---

Now, if you would all be so kind as to calm down, think a little more logically, and laugh at the original post, we can continue this discussion with a higher degree of accuracy.


Since you are humans, and therefore bad logicians, this is too much to ask, so instead I'll just ask that you try not to flame each other too much, hmm?

 

[Pins]

(that must be the most epic high horse riding I've ever seen )

Just a sidenote about a few points : not every robber is up to use his firearm just to steal some shit. And personally, I would not kill someone stealing my wallet. At best I would kick his ass beyond recognition, but definitely not kill him.

We do have gun control here (I won't say where I come from because it's a country that usually make even slightly conservative people mad) and it works pretty well. Maybe it's too late for USA, I don't know, I've only been there once.

My brother is used to come at home without knocking at the door. Lately, we were threatened by phone. Being paranoiac and stuff, if I had a gun I'd probably end up shooting my brother.

One last fact, some of my quite daredevil friends, sometimes (on special festive days) come into houses in the evening just for fun, and it usually turns into parties with the regular inhabitants. No doubt they would have been shot in a country without gun-control, for something a bit "wrong" but really harmless in fact.
I guess it might aswel come from a difference in the private property notion.

(By the way did I just merged two topic in my head )

 

[Captain Griffen]

My 40 armed guards. The snipers are probably enough though. See, if you are camping on my lawn, and I had plans there, you are infringing on my right to do what I was doing there. Surely we have equal rights to do whatever it is we are doing there. We cannot do these things at the same time. Who takes precedence?

Your lawn? Says who? There is no ownership of land in nature. It is the state trying to dictate what I can and cannot do.

I believe the concept of ownership was invented to address this specific dilemma. Further extensions are shared ownership and other complex agreements. I should research this more; this is just my initial opinion.

So you admit it is a ficticious invention, created for pragmatic purposes by the state, and thus may be interfered with by the state?

Breaking the law does not justify being killed. It would seem you are temporarily caught in the perception that the law defines morality, not the other way 'round.

So what you're saying is that breach of the law which endangers others does not justify the state taking action to stop you? Obeying legitimately crafted laws is part of the social contract. Breach that, and the state, according to most political philosophers, most definitely does have the right to intervene. Most other political philosophers would justify it, too, but from different approaches.

Furthermore, if you shoot someone before they have used their gun for manslaughter, that is preemptive. You also assume the people that are allowed to use the weapons to execute the law are "moral" people. This is a very dangerous assumption to make because it gives you a false sense of security. When people realize they are not secure as they thought, they tend to panic and open that can of worms.

How is it pre-emptive? Carrying around a concealed weapon in public is illegal and a threat to the public. That threat needs to be dealt with. That will involve endangering someone. The most appropriate person to be endangered is the person illegally carrying around a concealed weapon.

That why no gun control works. If everyone has a gun, people are a lot more likely to not try to use a weapon for nefarious purposes. This holds greater truth that the scenario whereby a select group of people are the ones holding guns. The less people who holds guns, the lesser the danger involved in doing things that harm other people.

And the less the reason to shoot other people. A guns culture leads to more guns being available, leads to more firearms accidents, more heat-of-the-moment shootings, and more murders in crimes involving guns.

I'm not sure whether or not you still hold this to be a truth, but others might, and debate in this context is a spectator sport. You attribute it to guns, when it could be any of a number of causes. Laws and regulations are not the only causes either.

Bad Science: Lack of control group.

Social sciences, dude. Really.

You're kidding right? Either that or you are dangerously uninformed with regards to history. As someone who prefers to think critically, it is your duty to be one of the people who knows history, so as to not have the negative of it repeat.

Tyranny of the gun-wielding nutters > tyranny of the majority government...

That you two have made these statements, supports my conclusion that people are terrible logicians. I just didn't think you guys were...

Inductive arguments don't have to be deductively valid.

Since you are humans, and therefore bad logicians, this is too much to ask, so instead I'll just ask that you try not to flame each other too much, hmm?

Ad hominem attacks while asking us not to flame...? Really, wtf...? Lol...