The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

You shred nobody to pieces. You just twist the facts any way can to promote your agenda. Repeating the same brain dead propaganda "guns don't kill people, people kill people", over and over, until people get tired of arguing with you. Thats not shredding anyone to pieces.

You gun nuts live in your own fantasy world, deluding yourselfs to believe that you can actually defend yourself and your freedom with your little guns against the entire military complex of the government. Your gun will solve all your problems. Yeah right. Meanwhile the government is stealing all your other rights, while you play with your little guns, and you are not even noticing your freedom slipping away.

Then answer my questions.

EDIT: You came into this thread, made some wild accusations - and we asked you to back up your argument with facts. You've produced a lot of numbers, but nothing that a) proves causality, or b) goes past the mere suggestion of *partial* correlation. When people asked you to explain instances where your correlation doesn't hold up - you lash out calling us lunatics.

I'm not watching my rights wash away around me, as a matter of fact I assert my rights every day when I wake up in the morning, put my holster through my belt, and secure my pistol in my holster before leaving. The 2nd amendment rights that guarantee every person the right to keep and bear arms is just as real to me as my right to free speech, my right against self-incrimination, and my right to due process of law.

As a matter of fact, I don't need my pistol to defend myself against my Government precisely because of my rights, not in spite of them.

My gun doesn't solve all my problems. I still have to go to work, I still have to pay my taxes, and last I checked - I don't wake up next to a supermodel every morning. But, if someone ever wishes to do me, my loved ones or my friends harm - I am confident in my ability to protect myself.

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 27 Aug 2012, 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You have your location listed as "My World". How fitting. . .

The real world works differently than your perfect little one.

Last edited by WardenWolf on 27 Aug 2012, 11:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Christ, not this correlation is causation BS again.

Where has crime DECREASED after passing gun bans? All I've seen are massive INCREASES, namely the UK, Australia, and Jamaica.

Um, probably because it's a list of "States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates" and "States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates"

Anyway I didn't make the list. I included a link to my source. Why don't contact them and ask?

Actually I'd be interested to see an entire list myself. But even if I did have it, I would have probably have edited it down for my post. Since its kind of hard to put the entire list of states in one post.

For one, those numbers don't mean anything without the number of non gun related homicides as well.
For Two
In 2007, there were 31,224 gun deaths in the U.S.
12,632 homicides (40% of total deaths)
17,352 suicides (56% of total deaths)
613 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths)
321 from legal intervention (1.1% of total deaths)
276 from undetermined intent (.9% of total deaths)

Which means that 10.27 Firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population is actually and this is by I'm thinking the same chart you got your numbers from,
4.14 Firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population.
In the country with by far the most gun to people ratio in the world, 88.8 guns per 100 people in 2007.

2007 is a popular year for these listed statistics, wish I could find current numbers.

So the united states has the most guns per person in the world, by at least twice if not three times the next country, and yet has a mid ranged amount of gun related deaths when suicide is factored out.

Compared to
Colombia's 51.77 with 5.9 guns per 100 people.
El Salvador 50.36 with 5.8 guns per 100 people.
Jamaica 47.44 with 8.1 guns per 100 people.
Honduras 46.70 with 6.2 guns per 100 people.
Guatemala 38.52 with 13.1 guns per 100 people.
Hmm, hey anyone else notice the guns per person going up as the deaths go down?

You know I'm just going to skip to the end because this is getting boring.

America 10.27, 4.14 homicides, 5.71 suicides with 88.8 guns per 100 people.
England 0.46, 0.07 homicides, 0.33 suicides with 6.2 guns per 100 people.
Australia 2.94, 0.44 homicides, 2.35 suicides with 15 guns per 100 people.


Now lets see here, bring America to 15 guns per 100 people.
Oh.. America 1.73, 0.70 homicides, 0.96 suicides.
Well a few more people get shot then in Australia, but a lot less people shoot themselves.
Now lets see America at 6.2 guns per 100 people.
America 0.72, 0.29 homicides, 0.40 suicides.

Well your right, America at this time has more death to gun ratio then countries that are outright banning them.
Of course these base figures don't take into account the shift in gun deaths that would come from having less guns.
The statistics are also all from 4 or 5 years ago.
So it is off one way or other a bit.
According to you, the deaths would be less, so I would have to say by your logic America has approximately the same amount of gun violence as you have we just have more guns.
But again, I don't know the specific non gun crime rate or the increase it saw after banning guns.
So I'd say until you pass those statistics on to me, our system is working ever so slightly better then yours and I, unlike you can buy a replica sword, or an airsoft gun, or a bow, or large knife or any number of other things I'm sure are illegal in your country for "your safety"

You're missing the point. You posting the list of states with "Highest Gun Death Rates" doesn't do anything to prove your point - which you've just admitted. It doesn't prove causality - it proves correlation. And, in this case, it doesn't even prove correlation between strict gun control and low gun violence - it proves correlation between the amount of guns and gun violence.

Switzerland doesn't have our homicide rates, and if anything their gun laws are more liberal.

We have to example the CAUSAL relations, meaning what MOTIVATES murder in this country. In my opinion a large part of it is our insane war on drugs!

The Violence Policy Center is notorious for doctored statistics and intellectual dishonesty. Citing them should be the Godwin's law of gun control debates.

In case you didn't notice, people have formulated arguments on their own here without the help of bumper stickers which you fail to address. But yeah, keep resorting to personal attacks and strawmen whenever people ask you to back up your assertions. I find the arrogant horses**t too repulsive to even bother anymore.

Well, this thread is quickly devolving from interesting to stupid.... What started as an interesting excersize seems to quickly be devolving into name calling, mud slinging, and malicious inferral..... All purely academic posts excused.....

Id ask for a thread lock, if only to preserve the good intentions of the Original Poster, but Im not sure if thats even available on this side of the forum lol.....

Either way, I've lost interest. Way to ruin a good thread,
Aldran

"

In whole Europe for example. During WWI/WWII there was a bunch of guns among people. With strickt laws introduced and regular gun amnesties, the numbers went down. Outcome of EU gun policy - and it's gun part- is today's crime level.






Strick gun law means nothing if it is just a piece of paper. You have to follow it. And that is definitely not a case of Brazil. And strick gun laws in one state while others don't apply them is very similar foolishness. It simply doesn't work this way. Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno


Mike_Garrick - nice math work. But people are not interested in this academical comparisons. People are interested in absolute numbers. Meaning XYZ murders in their neighbourhood is a lot. They would accept X at most. They don't care that there are XY guns in their neighbourhood so using rule of three sum and comparing it to UK, the result seem quite mild. They don't care, because there are still XYZ dead bodies on their street. And only X bodies on UK streets.


sliqua-jcooter - No, it provides causality between UK anticrime politics and UK crime rates vs US AP and US CR. Guns are part of this politics. But you refuse to adapt it because? Because? Don't answer this rhetorical question, I have seen to much of "rational" answers, can't take more of them

Do you honestly think this situation would have improved with more guns? Should the bystanders have shot back at the police?

Yes, the original target (the guy who was shot in the head 5 times - had bad blood with the shooter - and whom everyone who was present that day thought the shooter was going to kill him as he was walking up) would have been able to protect himself.

The problem with this incident was one of training - police in general don't receive adequate firearms training. They train at most twice a year, many departments train just enough to get their officers to qualify. The police opened fire at a suspect, in a crowded area, seemingly without regard for what was going on beyond their target. Anyone who carries, or has received any kind of self-defense firearms training will tell you this is one of the first things they teach you beyond basic gun safety.

Police in general - but especially those who work in urban areas - need to be trained to deal with situations exactly like this. To not do so is simply foolish.

And if you look at historical crime numbers - even when there were "a bunch" of guns in Europe - gun violence was lower than in the US - and hasn't really changed that much since then. Gun violence in Europe has *always* been very low. Most of the guns that were around in WWI and WWII were procured as part of the war effort - that's not surprising. But after the war was over - it's not like they had all these guns and suddenly started killing each other.




The gun control measures in Brazil were passed to try and curb gun control laws - and there are people in Brazil arrested every day under those laws. It doesn't prevent the population at-large from risking breaking the law to be armed, and it doesn't prevent criminals from procuring guns to assist them breaking the law. The downside is that people who feel a very real need to have a gun to prevent someone from carjacking them in the middle of the street in broad daylight, are now being treated as criminals.

Your point about individual states' law is just absurd. If a state adopts strict gun control laws, if gun control actually worked - you'd see a corresponding drop in gun violence in that state. Again - we're not comparing state a to state b, we're comparing state a before and after they instituted gun control laws. It's never happened. Point me to an example where it has and I'll eat my words. No one has yet to do that.





No, it doesn't - all it proves is that the UK has less gun crime than the US. The assumption is because the UK has stricter gun laws, but that's not proven by these numbers alone. You say that gun control measures in the UK around the time of WWI and WWII is what's responsible for the low gun violence level. So show me a line graph of the gun homicide rate of the two countries from 1910-2010. If the UK graph goes down around the 1945 mark and the US graph continues to climb, you may be on to something. But that is what no one here has done - provided one hint of evidence that gun control is actually responsible for the lower gun crime numbers in the UK.

They didn't, because not single government did take this risk. They simply took this guns off the people, so folks had no chance to use them.

Brazil is corrupted third world country. Expecting some law to have possitive effect while large part of police are criminals themselves is quite naive. Let Brazil, Africa and other similar countries be...



But you are the one doing this comparison...
And once again - it has no point to pick up parts of the town, state, federation as good or bad example. Let's talk about whole nations because in every single town/state/federation you wil find out areas with very different crime rates - yet the same laws. So what does it mean then there is some district in London with significantly higher gun crime rate? That UK gun laws should be used as toilet paper? No sir...




Australia
http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news ... 061214.php
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

and your line graphs


[img][800:1280]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365/F1.large.jpg[/img]