| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
![[image loading]](http://mark.reid.name/pics/figures/deaths-vs-guns-20121219.png) from http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html Sorry but you can have a correlation with some outliers or anomalies. Switzerland has high gun ownership but far lower ammunition ownership (as described above). Feel free to address my other points though. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote: from http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html Sorry but you can have a correlation with some outliers or anomalies. Switzerland has high gun ownership but far lower ammunition ownership (as described above). Feel free to address my other points though. Categorically false. Switzerland has plenty of ammunition and it is easy to obtain. I've already addressed the arguments that somehow the ammunition is regulated heavily to the point you can't get it; that's categorically false. You do realize that Canada, Switzerland, and Finland are the countries I just listed with tons of gun ownership and they have no issues with firearm related violence. Not to mention your chart is gun deaths which would include suicides. This thread is specifically dealing with homicides and mass shootings. If your argument's were about preventing gun suicides, that would be a much more reasonable argument, however we all know that the leftist argument has always been emotional grand standing and using mass shootings as an example of why there needs to be gun control. I would like to also mention that how the U.K. and other countries report homicide/suicide/violent crime numbers is obviously very different from how the FBI does it. I pointed that out prior to this, which is why I said you cannot take random numbers and cross compare. I mean here lookie here, I can literally throw any graph up to support my point too ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/p3DvtST.png) | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
Can I ask out of curiosity exactly what your positions on gun control are: 1: Is everything ok as it is now? 2: If not, what gun control/safety legislation would you be willing to consider? 3: If there were measures that could prevent suicides and spur of the moment gun killings - like a mandatory 28 day waiting period - would you consider that? | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 02:36 Jockmcplop wrote: OK I can see this isn't going to get anywhere. Can I ask out of curiosity exactly what your positions on gun control are: 1: Is everything ok as it is now? 2: If not, what gun control/safety legislation would you be willing to consider? 3: If there were measures that could prevent suicides and spur of the moment gun killings - like a mandatory 28 day waiting period - would you consider that? Lol; so instead of answering my rebuttal you just ignore everything, ok. And then you wonder why people tell liberals to kick rocks. 1) You guys were incredibly ignorant and made sweeping statements about gun ownership in Switzerland and ammunition without actual education on the subject 2) You don't actually respond to arguments, you just moral grand stand and say "So you're ok with everything as it is now?" 3) You've changed the narrative from preventing mass shootings which are statistically insignificant (fact) to preventing firearm homicides/suicides. Then you expect me to take you seriously at all? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16679 Posts
its probably way down from 1990. yet you watch media from 1990 and the USA isn't presented as this war-torn danger-zone the way it is today. keeping the population scared shitless is a great way to justify the massive prison population the USA has. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
You know that in your rebuttal the following points are made: -Gun deaths in total are irrelevant to gun control. I think you can see why this is wrong but you just want to move the argument onto a playing field of your choosing because otherwise it looks bad for you. -There are countries where gun ownership isn't a problem. I'm willing to concede that although this goes against the general grain, its true. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that gun ownership and proliferation isn't a problem in America. -Differences in reporting mean its impossible to compare one country to another. Fair enough. None of these points mean anything to the argument, they are just ways of distracting everyone from your country's horrible gun crime problem. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44194 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24667 Posts
| ||
|
blabber
United States4448 Posts
On February 19 2018 02:38 superstartran wrote: Lol; so instead of answering my rebuttal you just ignore everything, ok. And then you wonder why people tell liberals to kick rocks. 1) You guys were incredibly ignorant and made sweeping statements about gun ownership in Switzerland and ammunition without actual education on the subject 2) You don't actually respond to arguments, you just moral grand stand and say "So you're ok with everything as it is now?" 3) You've changed the narrative from preventing mass shootings which are statistically insignificant (fact) to preventing firearm homicides/suicides. Then you expect me to take you seriously at all? even if mass shootings are "statistically insignificant" (look who's throwing random facts around), wouldn't you, as a decent human being on planet Earth whom I assume is bothered when innocent people die en masse and you would not like to see that happen, want to do what you can to prevent them? Isn't it common sense that having LESS guns be accessible lowers the chance of it happening? (not saying it's the ONLY solution to the problem, but it would HELP) | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
I'm trying to discuss something with him and just get yelled at for things that "you liberals" do. This is obviously an ideological issue for him and not a practical one. The discussion become pointless and moot at that point because no practical steps can ever be taken due to the fact that the ideology gets in the way. | ||
|
ragnasaur
United States804 Posts
Apples & Oranges | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 02:58 ragnasaur wrote: Those graphs are dumb. USA is a first world country & the comparative countries like Jamacia and Honduras are third world. Apples & Oranges That is my exact point. You and I can throw any graph out there, without actually controlling for several variables you don't get an accurate picture | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote: Wow you are so aggressive lol. You know that in your rebuttal the following points are made: -Gun deaths in total are irrelevant to gun control. I think you can see why this is wrong but you just want to move the argument onto a playing field of your choosing because otherwise it looks bad for you. -There are countries where gun ownership isn't a problem. I'm willing to concede that although this goes against the general grain, its true. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that gun ownership and proliferation isn't a problem in America. -Differences in reporting mean its impossible to compare one country to another. Fair enough. None of these points mean anything to the argument, they are just ways of distracting everyone from your country's horrible gun crime problem. Your original narrative is about mass shootings. I concede that gun control laws would in fact prevent suicides. But liberals only talk about gun control in the wake of mass shootings and not when everything is quiet,and they never talk about suicide rates ever. Gun deaths are actually pretty irrelevant to gun laws. I can point out multiple examples of countries and states with strict gun laws and massive issued with firearm homicides. Two, your last point cracks me up since you think the US had a significant gun problem. Actual firearm homicides is a little over 10k a year, a vast majority of that being gang related violence. Mass shootings make up less than 1 percent of that, if we renamed that stat to death by strangulation with coat wires no one would give a shit. But since it's guns, everyone has to flip out. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
On February 19 2018 04:04 superstartran wrote: Your original narrative is about mass shootings. I concede that gun control laws would in fact prevent suicides. But liberals only talk about gun control in the wake of mass shootings and not when everything is quiet,and they never talk about suicide rates ever. That's true. For me, being so remote from America, I simply don't think about it. It becomes a topic of conversation when there's a mass shooting so I join in. I can perfectly well understand why this makes pro gun people feel under siege at these times. I would say its far more important to deal with the issue of guns that is constant, instead of the one that crops up a few times per year. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 04:07 Jockmcplop wrote: That's true. For me, being so remote from America, I simply don't think about it. It becomes a topic of conversation when there's a mass shooting so I join in. I can perfectly well understand why this makes pro gun people feel under siege at these times. I would say its far more important to deal with the issue of guns that is constant, instead of the one that crops up a few times per year. And that is the major issue, people try and use mass shootings to justify shit, but never want to talk about urban gang violence, suicides, etc when talking about gun control. I'd argue that if you had super strict requirements when it comes to handguns you would severely limit most homicides, but the left never mentions that ever. All they talk about is "assault rifles" and the like without ever mentioning that said weapons are almost never used in the vast majority of crimes. Which is exactly why most probably gun supporters do not want to legislate anything currently because you have a bunch of incompetent politicians who would have no idea what to do. These guys can't even pass a budget without massive infighting on both sides, much less pass effective gun control measures that would actually reduce firearm related crimes. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9612 Posts
On February 19 2018 04:25 superstartran wrote: And that is the major issue, people try and use mass shootings to justify shit, but never want to talk about urban gang violence, suicides, etc when talking about gun control. I'd argue that if you had super strict requirements when it comes to handguns you would severely limit most homicides, but the left never mentions that ever. All they talk about is "assault rifles" and the like without ever mentioning that said weapons are almost never used in the vast majority of crimes. Which is exactly why most probably gun supporters do not want to legislate anything currently because you have a bunch of incompetent politicians who would have no idea what to do. These guys can't even pass a budget without massive infighting on both sides, much less pass effective gun control measures that would actually reduce firearm related crimes. This is a problem with modern politics in general. People are so busy fighting each other they forget to go and find the things that they agree on and get them done. If I'm honest from the reporting I have seen about US politics the NRA wouldn't give an inch on anything at all to do with gun safety or gun control anyway, but it certainly doesn't help that no-one's proposing sensible measures. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 04:42 Jockmcplop wrote: This is a problem with modern politics in general. People are so busy fighting each other they forget to go and find the things that they agree on and get them done. If I'm honest from the reporting I have seen about US politics the NRA wouldn't give an inch on anything at all to do with gun safety or gun control anyway, but it certainly doesn't help that no-one's proposing sensible measures. Why should the NRA give an inch on anything when none of the measures proposed are sensible in the slightest? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13888 Posts
The United states is a lot more spread out and diverse then a lot of countries in the world. Theres a bunch of states with huge gun ownership and low gun crime like Minnesota Wisconsion and the northeast. Statistics are really bad to apply to America because of things like this. I agree from a Euro perspective that it would be conclusive and easy evidence to see what the problem is but from a nation like the United states that has two huge mountain ranges and cities that have suffered extremely from globalization and the Cocaine epidemic. There is enough space for large gun ownship areas and low gun ownership areas to not directly effect eachother. I think a better path to lower gun deaths would be for people to use the statistic to push better economic programs to lower the demand for crime along side other initiatives. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44194 Posts
On February 19 2018 04:00 superstartran wrote: That is my exact point. You and I can throw any graph out there, without actually controlling for several variables you don't get an accurate picture But your response to a graph that *did* control for that variable (OECD countries) was a graph that was purposely less accurate and *didn't* control for it. Those two graphs are not both equally inaccurate, and just because you can find a bad graph doesn't mean the good graph should be ignored. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 19 2018 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: But your response to a graph that *did* control for that variable (OECD countries) was a graph that was purposely less accurate and *didn't* control for it. Those two graphs are not both equally inaccurate, and just because you can find a bad graph doesn't mean the good graph should be ignored. The fact that you really think that OECD graph is actually an accurate representative and can be used as evidence for correlation between number of firearms and firearm related violence is laughable at best. The author himself said that you cannot use his graphs as evidence for anything because the dude got his fucking statistics from wikipedia. There's a MUCH stronger correlation of income disparity and poverty with firearm related violence more than anything, but no one wants to talk about that. It's all about guns bro. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
