Conservapedia talk:Defensive weapon of gun

The deletion debate for this article can be found at RationalWiki:Do we keep these CP-related articles?/Resolved.

No listings for Somalia or Iraq? --Gulik 15:52, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Teh calculators don't go high enough.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:13, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Move to Fun or Essay? Secret Squirrel 16:29, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

err ... NO?   ^Contribs_Talk 16:40, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

It's mission creep, and besides, I'm feeling cranky today. Secret Squirrel 16:42, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

The snark is sorta Fun stuff but the actual content is Mainspace. There is a valid point being made here and I think it would be better if the tone was more serious and we beefed it up. Gun ownership (particularly handgun) should be included. There will porbably be some facts that "disprove" the gun control ethos but I suspect the majority will reinforce it. Unfortunately Mandy seizes on the single contrary data point to "prove" his thesis. Genghis ^Marauding 16:44, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I was unsure how to start the page & thought that the snark would get some more contributions coming. I don't think it's mission creep as it's a primary concern to US conservatives.  ^Contribs_Talk 16:49, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I say it's Mainspace for sure, but we beef it up. There's huge amounts of info out there, and we can do a good RW-style job on this material. There is only ONE argument against gun control in the US that has any credibility - to ban guns, at this stage, would likely leave the guns only in the hands of the bad guys. All other arguments are completely bogus. DogP 16:51, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Based on the title, I'd say, move it to conservapedia: - or rename it "Gun control and gun deaths in peacetime by country" and add some more data. human 20:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

However, our mission is to refute crank ideas, not conservative ideas. I'm inclined to agree with the Confidential Rodent. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:54, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

"3: Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." think that covers it!   ^Contribs_Talk 17:00, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Eh? Secret Squirrel 17:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Free ownership of guns is authoritarianism? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:03, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm with the Squirrel and the Gloomy Dane's "huh?" on that one (and I'm for gun control!). Gun control is arguably, easily arguably, authoritarian. Widespread free gun ownership is anti-authoritarian. human 20:33, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Sane idea #1: let every idiot with an inferiority or persecution complex have access to long range lethal weapons. Sane idea #2: put one's trust in an invisible entity with no discernible proof of existence to take care of one's everyday needs and guarantee everlasting life in another place after physical death. Obviously my notions of crank ideas differ from AK(47)'s. Genghis ^Marauding 17:33, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

See, this is something called a difference of opinion and is generally considered a desirable, or at the very least, unavoidable thing in a modern, enlightened society. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:45, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Good, we'll proceed with bashing gun freaks then. Genghis ^Marauding 17:49, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

You go right ahead and do that. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:03, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Your condescension is most gratifying. ;) Genghis ^Marauding 02:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I have come to understand that around here, respect is apparently something that is earned rather than taken for granted, so I'm adapting accordingly. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:24, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Statistics

Here's some more results. I'm trying to dig up a huge amount of info I tracked down while researching this years ago. DogP 19:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

For those interested in research this paper looks comprehensive.--Bob^{bing up} 05:37, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Opinion

In my opinion, this article would be greatly helped with such things as gun ownership rates, overall violent crime rates, and penalties (or lack thereof) for using a gun during a crime. Most importantly, there should be a differentiation between the countries which have free ownership (as it says in the introduction) and those who don't.

Then there are other such things which are harder to quantify, such as drug laws (illegal drugs = scarcity = high prices = high stakes = more to be gained from violence), police force (ineffective police force = lowered cost of using weapons or lower barrier to getting them illegally), and so on which would shed a lot of light on the issue as well. I think it also makes a difference whether the guns were used as part of a planned crime, a crime of passion, or an accident.

I will state my bias: I think that any law-abiding, sane, and trained individual should be allowed to own a gun. However, even though I don't think guns are nearly as evil as some people here think they are, I think we are both benefitted by a quality article. Your friendly neighborhood Lurker 12:43, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't argue with (most of) that, although I don't see the need for owning a gun - but I'm a Brit, so it's largely irrelevant.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

RE: "I don't see the need for owning a gun." Susan, sometimes people just need a good shooting, know what i'm sayin'?...also, this article should be re-titled "Largely Offensive Weapon of Gun" in the interest of quote-mining accuracy...PFoster 13:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

There's no need for RW to "take a side" as long as we present good data in a clear fashion. A sortable table like at "active users", combined with many more countries, and the extra columns Lurker suggests, would make an article. As it stands, this is just weak anti-CP snark. human 20:32, 12 May 2008 (EDT)