|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 17 2018 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:05 Danglars wrote:On February 17 2018 00:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 17 2018 00:18 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 00:08 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 23:53 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:55 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:51 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 21:45 zlefin wrote:On February 16 2018 21:38 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
There's plenty of them, and yet you can't even list three of them. Ok.
"Yeah man, look at all those facts, you're wrong and you're an asshole, but I'm not even going to bother because I'm wasting my time."
where did I say you're an asshole? I don't see a strong implication of it anywhere; but I do see how you could erroneously conclude tha'ts what I meant. you are correct that I shouldn't waste time on here with you, which is why I'm trying to withdraw; I'm just bad at withdrawing. Because the tone that comes from your statements comes off as you calling me an asshole. You say that there are plenty of facts in this thread that refute my arguments yet you are unable to list even three of them even in bullet point form, let alone in thoughtful arguments. Which pretty much supports the idea that you actually have no clue what you're talking about, and you're talking straight from emotion. or it means I was trying to withdraw from the argument; and listing facts which were already presented and you ignored would only result in you claiming they weren't facts, and hence would not progress anything at all. are you talking from emotion, or from reason? and how can you tell the difference? It seems like you use "talking from emotion" as a cudgel to assert your opponents arguments are baseless, and therefore claim victory. oh, and my tone wasn't "asshole"; it was more like "fool", IF there was such a tone and you weren't just reading too muhc into it; there's always the possibility I was just interjecting my opinion of the overall convincingness of the arguments presented. this is the internet after all, it's not uncommon for both sides in an argument to be making a weak case. also, I originally said "counterpoints" not "counterfacts", i'm generally quite precise in my word choice, and choose the exact word I meant to say, and not a related word. otherwise you end up arguing against something other than what I actually said. Lol, what facts? There is literally nothing here presented to support gun control other than "guns are inherently bad" The fact that you continue to dodge my request for factual evidence only supports the idea that you guys have no clue what you are talking about and aren't even educated on the subject of firearms. you've proven you're arguing in bad faith, so there's no point in talking to you anymore. please learn to improve the quality of your discourse and arguments, and/or choose to do so if you know how but chose not to. So when I make multiple requests for supposed 'facts' that are counterpoints to my argument you completely ignore it and simply post in response an elaborate and 'polite' ad homenin. Typical; you can't actually factually backup your claims and you simply avoid the subject. And then you wonder why the NRA has such significant lobbying power. Their lobbying power comes from the fact that your side of the argument is incapable of arguing from an objective standpoint. Your refusal to actual list arguments, factual studies, statistics, or any peer reviewed academic journals only demonstrates that you are in fact arguing from emotion. The NRA's lobbying power comes from the fact that they are rich, have many members, and republican politicians are absolutely terrified of them, way too scared to even try and make a move on a single common sense gun law. They aren’t rich. They’re country bumpkins in lobbying politicians. Period. Anyone who calls them rich is an idiot. They’re spending 30k on a politician that gets 14million from oil. Akin to saying you’re a rich player when you gave one dollar to a guy getting 450$ from other single sources (but stupidity in gun control debate is an American pastime). Their power is mobilization of their membership against politicians that don’t get their stamp, and mobilization towards their challengers. Superstartran is correct in pointing out their hardline stance is a cakewalk when the opposition transparently argues from emotion, is totally clueless on guns, and aims to demonize lawful owners. The second that stops, you can see background check reform or bump stocks. We would’ve already had bump stock changes had Dems not insisted on concomitant regs on mags and suppressors. The NRA is one of the most powerful and effective lobbies in the US. Politicians of both parties say it. Reporters are saying it today. Lobbyist say it. The NRA brags about it. The people who deny it are people who wish to downplay the influence of the NRA on Washington DC.
The NRA's influence comes from the PEOPLE, not from money. 5 million plus people who believe that they are woefully demonized by the media and other groups of people. If you want change, you have to convince a significant amount of those people to start voting in the other direction.
|
On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind.
So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it.
|
There have been way less schoolshootings (not none!) in countries with comparable economic success like the US.
Why do you bring up stuff that just isn't true?
Yeah, only gun control won't solve everything... But it helps. Your argument seems to be: "this wouldn't immediatly lead to utopia, so better not do it", which is stupid and dangerous.
|
On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it.
The problem isn't the complexity of the issue, its the refusal of some people to even contemplate trying to take any action at all.
If you want to say its a mental health issue, for example (just an example, not putting words in your mouth), what steps are being taken? Absolutely none.
What people want isn't a blanket ban on guns, we aren't trying to take all of your weapons away from you, we just want some responsiveness to these awful acts of violence instead of just a couple of politicians saying how terrible they feel and then going back to business as usual until the next one.
|
On February 17 2018 02:12 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:02 Broetchenholer wrote:
You don't need to own working firearms for sport shooting or collecting so we can probably drop them from the argument. I mean, it's still a valid reason to use them, it's just a much weaker argument to have something potential dangerous. So, self defense, how much less of a murder rate would you trade your guns for. If you could simply reduce murder by disarming the civil society and it would result in reduced murder off the bat, but the rest of murdered people could not have the chance to defend them selves? You're under the assumption that removing firearms instantly reduces murder rates. That's the furthest thing from the truth and you know it, as evidence to countries like Russia and Brazil where firearms are virtually banned and yet the murder rate is through the roof. It is a much more complex situation, especially when you consider that pockets of the United States of America are more in line with a 3rd world country than many of the 1st world countries that everyone loves to parade around as the pinnacle of peace and prosperity.
First: Why are you comparing the USA with Russia and Brazil but not with Canada or Great Britain? Sure, apples aren't pears (or whatever your equivalent idiom is  ) but you compare apples with chilis.
Second: I am aware of that, i am asking a theoretical question. Guns obviously provide a sense of security that might be real of fake ( i for one get mostly murdered in PUBG even though i am almost always armed). If you are not allowed to have a gun, some people will get hurt that might have not been had they been armed and i acknowledge that. So, the question is, is the perception of safety and the option to use deadly force for protection worth more then a lower statistical chance to have to use it?
|
On February 17 2018 02:32 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:12 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:02 Broetchenholer wrote:
You don't need to own working firearms for sport shooting or collecting so we can probably drop them from the argument. I mean, it's still a valid reason to use them, it's just a much weaker argument to have something potential dangerous. So, self defense, how much less of a murder rate would you trade your guns for. If you could simply reduce murder by disarming the civil society and it would result in reduced murder off the bat, but the rest of murdered people could not have the chance to defend them selves? You're under the assumption that removing firearms instantly reduces murder rates. That's the furthest thing from the truth and you know it, as evidence to countries like Russia and Brazil where firearms are virtually banned and yet the murder rate is through the roof. It is a much more complex situation, especially when you consider that pockets of the United States of America are more in line with a 3rd world country than many of the 1st world countries that everyone loves to parade around as the pinnacle of peace and prosperity. First: Why are you comparing the USA with Russia and Brazil but not with Canada or Great Britain? Sure, apples aren't pears (or whatever your equivalent idiom is ) but you compare apples with chilis. Second: I am aware of that, i am asking a theoretical question. Guns obviously provide a sense of security that might be real of fake ( i for one get mostly murdered in PUBG even though i am almost always armed). If you are not allowed to have a gun, some people will get hurt that might have not been had they been armed and i acknowledge that. So, the question is, is the perception of safety and the option to use deadly force for protection worth more then a lower statistical chance to have to use it?
You're assuming that lowering gun usage lowers all homicide rates. That's not true.
Two, I'm not comparing, I'm merely pointing out that you cannot hypothetically ban all weapons and then suddenly all violence disappears as evidenced to those countries I just listed.
|
On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it.
No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example.
Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked.
And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place.
Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place.
Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever.
|
On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it.
Uh...what are you even talking about? I haven't even mention school shootings. Who is bombing schools? Who are these mass murdering knifemen against schools?
I was being generous using gun crime as a metric as opposed to school shootings, which appear to be a particularily unique American cultural problem, but hey, I guess you still cannot respond to what people are talking to you about. Rather you appear to be talking to your own imaginary conversation.
You was talking about how you think that arguing that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. Where in the world is a country at peace with effective civil institutions have gun controls not reduced the incidence of gun crime?
A little history lesson: after the Yugoslavian war, and with the disarmament of the various combatats, armouries went mysterious empty and Europe was swamped with guns. Gun crime spiked but virtually every European country passed legislation for gun controls to reduce the likihood of gun crime. And it worked.
|
On February 17 2018 02:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:32 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 17 2018 02:12 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:02 Broetchenholer wrote:
You don't need to own working firearms for sport shooting or collecting so we can probably drop them from the argument. I mean, it's still a valid reason to use them, it's just a much weaker argument to have something potential dangerous. So, self defense, how much less of a murder rate would you trade your guns for. If you could simply reduce murder by disarming the civil society and it would result in reduced murder off the bat, but the rest of murdered people could not have the chance to defend them selves? You're under the assumption that removing firearms instantly reduces murder rates. That's the furthest thing from the truth and you know it, as evidence to countries like Russia and Brazil where firearms are virtually banned and yet the murder rate is through the roof. It is a much more complex situation, especially when you consider that pockets of the United States of America are more in line with a 3rd world country than many of the 1st world countries that everyone loves to parade around as the pinnacle of peace and prosperity. First: Why are you comparing the USA with Russia and Brazil but not with Canada or Great Britain? Sure, apples aren't pears (or whatever your equivalent idiom is ) but you compare apples with chilis. Second: I am aware of that, i am asking a theoretical question. Guns obviously provide a sense of security that might be real of fake ( i for one get mostly murdered in PUBG even though i am almost always armed). If you are not allowed to have a gun, some people will get hurt that might have not been had they been armed and i acknowledge that. So, the question is, is the perception of safety and the option to use deadly force for protection worth more then a lower statistical chance to have to use it? You're assuming that lowering gun usage lowers all homicide rates. That's not true. Two, I'm not comparing, I'm merely pointing out that you cannot hypothetically ban all weapons and then suddenly all violence disappears as evidenced to those countries I just listed.
It does not?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher." might suggest that it does. Of course that does not prove a causal link, but it is definitively a hint that there might be some linkage between the two.
Regarding your second point, see my previous post.
|
On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever.
The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. predominantly in urban neighborhoods and predominantly among blacks.
But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right? See, this is why you can't just throw out statistics on a whim without controlling for populations.
|
On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc.
As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done.
Also, it doesn't matter how strict local gun laws are, if you can just drive for half an hour and buy a gun at a place with less regulations.
|
On February 17 2018 02:40 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done.
Are you really going to say that Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, which are areas of the United States where gun violence is most prominent are similar to countries like Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada?
Get off your high horse bro.
|
Its an impossible argument to win
Person 1: Less guns doesn't mean less murder
Person 2: Yes it does, look at all of this data
Person 1: Yeah but that's not in America so it doesn't count.
There's always a way of moving the goalposts.
Does anyone have data about murder rates by state compared with gun restrictions in those states? It might be useful here.
|
On February 17 2018 02:41 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:40 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done. Are you really going to say that Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, which are areas of the United States where gun violence is most prominent are similar to countries like Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada? Get off your high horse bro.
All of the cities you listed are near or are in states with very lack gun laws. Chicago bans many fire arms, but a 30 minutes drive will get you across the boarder to unlimited fire arms with no waiting period.
|
On February 17 2018 02:41 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:40 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done. Are you really going to say that Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, which are areas of the United States where gun violence is most prominent are similar to countries like Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada? Get off your high horse bro.
Compare them to cities in other countries, why not? Your population came from these very countries...
Or compare it to Canada+france+uk+ireland+germany/france/scandinavia... (Other western economic powerhouses).
|
On February 17 2018 02:41 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:40 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done. Are you really going to say that Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, which are areas of the United States where gun violence is most prominent are similar to countries like Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada? Get off your high horse bro.
You're just making the case that gun restriction needs to be federally mandated. It doesn't matter what the law in Chicago is when you can get a gun in neighboring states and bring it into Chicago with literally nothing stopping you. That's why gun laws and bans have to be on the federal level to have any impact. Thanks, the rest of us and the world know this.
|
On February 17 2018 02:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:41 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:40 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. As predicted, US exceptionalism. The amazing and best argument. Us is so incredibly exceptional that you simply cannot compare the US to any other country. And by some chance there is not a lot of research into gun violence inside the US, so really, nothing can be done. Are you really going to say that Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, which are areas of the United States where gun violence is most prominent are similar to countries like Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada? Get off your high horse bro. All of the cities you listed are near or are in states with very lack gun laws. Chicago bans many fire arms, but a 30 minutes drive will get you across the boarder to unlimited fire arms with no waiting period.
If that were true, then the states with lax gun laws would also have massive issues with fire arm related violence, which statistically is untrue.
|
On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. predominantly in urban neighborhoods and predominantly among blacks. But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right? See, this is why you can't just throw out statistics on a whim without controlling for populations.
What is so unique about USA? You say that USA is not unique because it is not homogeneous? So, what you are saying is that Black people are the reason for ineffective gun controls. They can just magic guns from thin air and are willing to use them eh? Well, now we know what are your true thoughts on the matter.
|
On February 17 2018 02:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 02:37 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:35 Simberto wrote:On February 17 2018 02:25 superstartran wrote:On February 17 2018 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm not sure how someone can argue that better gun controls will reduce school shootings is an emotion from violence. You have a wealth of sources from the other 6 billion people in the world. You don't need to ban guns. In the UK, guns are not illegal. Many farmers still legally own guns, as do sports enthusiasts and hunters. There has been many gun amnesties and people still do smuggle guns and every now and then someone gets accidently shot and so on and so forth, but gun crime has drastically decreased over the periods when gun legislation were passed. You simply cannot obtain one without reason and certainly if you are not sound of mind. So you reduce school shootings to now school bombings or slashings, whatever tool of destruction you want. It still hasn't actually solved the issue. There has also been multiple shootings across the world in countries where there are incredibly strict gun laws, or guns have been virtually all but banned. This is a multi faceted problem that is much tougher to face, and requires a multi faceted solution. Gun control is just one of many things associated with it. No one claims that you can reduce gun violence and/or school shootings to zero. You can, however, reduce them by a lot. Take a look at the statistics i linked previously for example. Yes, sometimes someone will get a gun despite a ban. However, that is a lot harder and a lot rarer than in countries where you can just walk into a shop and buy one, no questions asked. And yes, sometimes people will choose different tools of destruction if they can not get a gun. This alone is already an upgrade, because those different tools are by definition either harder to get or less effective, because if they were not, they would be the tool of choice in the first place. Someone with a knife might kill one person and injure a few more. The same person with a gun can kill dozens. Building bombs is not easy, and getting the stuff needed to build bombs will rather often lead to government intervention, because bombs are not legal to own in basically any place. Just because something does not completely remove a problem does not mean it is not worth doing. Airbags and seatbelts don't completely remove deaths in car accidents, yet we still have them. Because something that helps a bit is better than not doing anything whatsoever. The statistics you listed bear no meaning to the unique situation of the United States of America. You cannot compare a highly homogeneous country like Japan to the United States; the areas where gun violence is most prevalent in the United States also happens to be where gun laws are incredibly strict such as Chicago, Baltimore, etc. predominantly in urban neighborhoods and predominantly among blacks. But hey man, going with your logic that must mean blacks are violent people right? See, this is why you can't just throw out statistics on a whim without controlling for populations. What is so unique about USA? You say that USA is not unique because it is not homogeneous? So, what you are saying is that Black people are the reason for a higher gun crime. Well, now we know what are your true thoughts on the matter.
Rofl; way to take things way out of context. The point I was making is that if you don't control for things such as ethnic population, wealth, and various other different factors you can make any assumption you want. It's a statistical fact that blacks on average commit far more violent crimes in the United States than any other ethnic group in the United States. Going by the logic you guys are using, that would make black people violent, when you and I know both know that's a load of horse shit, and that there are way more factors then simple numbers.
|
Your school shootings are done by white kids, try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
