Are gun control advocates putting the public at risk?

[Goshin]

This is like blaming traffic on traffic lights.

Urban areas tend to have a lot of crime, especially gun crime. So of course in response they passed stricter gun laws than places that didn't.

Here's you: "Look at all those traffic lights and traffic in Chicago -- the traffic lights must be causing the traffic because Small Town only has a few traffic lights and little traffic!"

Try to use logic once in a while instead of NRA memes.

The purpose of traffic lights is to regulate traffic, to make it flow more smoothly and have fewer accidents. It can be seen that this effect is achieved to a substantial degree.


Comparing them to gun control laws is not very apt.... since if the comparison were legitimate then gun control laws would have reduced homicides substantially... and that cannot be seen to be the case when those cities with the strictest gun laws also have among the highest murder rates.

 

[Ikari]

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

The availability of guns is behind every single instance of gun violence by definition. Jesus man, try to use logic for once.

if you were actually using logic, you'd see why you are both right.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The analogy fits perfectly or you could rebut it. You can't. Typical Boomsticklover punt.

Oh look another fallacy, "I'm right because you don't think I'm worth the time to explain how I'm wrong"

:lamo

As if I would legitimize you by taking you seriously, 2nd Amendment hater. You're not anywhere near my level, you're a partisan hack.

 

[TurtleDude]

Translated: can't rebut it. I know, I know. Boomsticklovers don't understand basic logic.

what sheer idiocy. you are a virulent hater of gun owners

you support more gun laws

that proves that the gun haters see gun laws as a way of harassing gun owners

 

[TurtleDude]

To repeat. We do not hate guns. Just the opposite. We know where that is going. We also know there will never be another federal gun law passed. How can we work together to enforce the ones you agree with, without throwing insults?

you speak for a small minority

most gun control advocates are either ignorant of reality or do hate the politics of gun owners.

And your claim that there will never be another federal gun law is just silly speculation

I don't believe in any of the stuff the dems have proposed

anything that applies only to honest citizens should be stricken from the law books

 

[blackjack50]

Nice try, guy - it sure does look by what you presented that America's murder rate is REALLY LOW, especially given our atmospherically-high gun ownership rate.

Problem is, you compared apples to oranges. You compared America - a first-world nation in every sense of the phrase - to NOT A SINGLE OTHER FIRST-WORLD NATION (unless you count Greenland, which IIRC is actually a territory of Denmark).

So how about going back and comparing apples to apples, and seeing how America's homicide rate compares with other first-world nations, hm? And then get back to us.

So you think that demographically or culturally you can compare America to other European nations that are vastly different even in their core principles? Really? Do you realize the massive population difference between America and any other comparable nation?

Are you one of those people who would compare Soviet Union terrorism/crime to American terror and crime and say that it was proof that communism produces a less violent happier society? Ignoring the whole time that a police state will be very good at...ya know...policing and arresting people.

Sigh. You can disarm yourself and wait for the police in an emergency. But I have a test for you. Go into your home and have a friend pretend to break in while you are home. See how long it takes for you to get a phone and call the police. Then see how it takes for them to get their. Now compare that to how long it takes for you to get a gun (bout the same speed as getting to a phone actually). Then compare how long it takes for how long it takes for the situation to resolve itself.


There are three kinds of lies in this world. Lies, Damn lies, And statistics. (Mark twain).

I would rather be the individual who ignored statistics and relies on myself for protection than someone who doesn't even have an obligation to protect me.

 

[Linc]

Summer vacation has always been a great time to reload for teachers. I'm trying to convince my wife to own a gun. Why? Because times are more dangerous. Especially where we like to vacation--in the National Parks and Forests. I don't care about the color. "Most of the gun owners" is too ambiguous for me.

because most of the gun owners in the USA are white and the statistics are skewed by the astronomically high rates of black gun violence

obviously for most americans, the availability of guns does not create crime problems

 

[ttwtt78640]

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

The availability of guns is behind every single instance of gun violence by definition. Jesus man, try to use logic for once.

The availablilty of hammers is behind every single instance of hammer violence by definition.

The availablilty of cars is behind every single instance of car violence by definition.

The availablilty of flamable liquids is behind every single instance of flamable liquid violence by definition.

A criminal is behind every violent crime and we can and will deal with that.

 

[Linc]

Toomey is not a Democrat. But Heitkamp, who voted no on Toomey/Manchin, is a Democrat. It's complicated. But as long as Repubs have this House, until at least 2022 IMHO, and the filibuster is in place with guns, you have nothing to worry about. I am concerned about the bullet thing though, which shows I am moving to the center.

you speak for a small minority

most gun control advocates are either ignorant of reality or do hate the politics of gun owners.

And your claim that there will never be another federal gun law is just silly speculation

I don't believe in any of the stuff the dems have proposed

anything that applies only to honest citizens should be stricken from the law books

 

[Linc]

self defense, yes. Getting out of your vehicle when told not to is not self defense. Goshin brought up the statistics, not me. I did my homework like a good little teacher and read the stats.

So now we want to talk homicide? You know those stats are a joke right? Most European nations don't count anyone 16 and under (or under 16) when they commit murder. That also doesn't account for the relatively homogenous society (political and ethnic). It also doesn't account for the smaller areas with less people or the fact that if you pull the highest homicide rates (top 20 cities) out of our stats. Then you have demographic difference. Gang crime (drugs being a factor).

Most cities in America aren't violent. You aren't in any more danger here than the UK. Well unless you are in the wrong hood. We quarantine the violence. We restrict it to poor people for the most part. Look at any city. Guns are not our problem. It is our culture and the methods used to deal with the violence. Hell police in those nations are quite often better trained.

I do know this though. Here you can shoot someone in self defense. You do that in Europe and you have a much higher % chance of going to jail.

 

[BretJ]

And how do the murder rates of either one compare to that of far less-restrictive America?

Irrelevant to the belief that gun ownership leads to more or less murders by firearms. You just cannot base a valid conclusion either way.

 

[head of joaquin]

So what does everyone think, are gun control advocates putting public safety at risk, by supporting measures to remove guns from the public?

Let's say they aren't and the opposite is true. You wouldn't really care and it wouldn't change your fanatical support of gun ownership, would it?

Does this make this another disingenuous OP?

 

[head of joaquin]

That's already been proven with the mass shootings at places where carrying a gun isn't allowed.

Oh the logic of gun advocates.

This fallacy of the denying the antecedent.

 

[BretJ]

To repeat. We do not hate guns. Just the opposite. We know where that is going. We also know there will never be another federal gun law passed. How can we work together to enforce the ones you agree with, without throwing insults?

Isn't that what most have already said? Enforce the laws already in place. Inner city local governments and law enforcement need to grow a pair and do it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Let's say they aren't and the opposite is true. You wouldn't really care and it wouldn't change your fanatical support of gun ownership, would it?

Does this make this another disingenuous OP?

the problem with the distilled idiocy in that comment is that we gun owners are honest about our position-rights are not forfeit even if their abolition might incrementally increase public safety but you anti gun types don't care about your facade as to what motivates you

your goal is to harass gun owners and you only pretend that public safety (which has no factually basis of support) is what supports your position.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh the logic of gun advocates.

This fallacy of the denying the antecedent.

Is that a failed attempt to sound intellectual while saying absolutely nothing of value?

 

[Visbek]

So what does everyone think, are gun control advocates putting public safety at risk, by supporting measures to remove guns from the public?

No.

Many nations have far more restrictive gun laws than the US, and much lower crime rates. At least one nation (Australia) has successfully reduced the rate of mass shootings when it restricted specific types of weapons.

At the risk of oversimpliflying, there's the old warhorse of US/UK/Japan comparisons.

US guns per 100 people: 101
UK guns per 100 people: 6.7
Japan guns per 100 people: 0.6

US gun deaths per 100,000 people, per year: 10.2
UK gun deaths per 100,000 people, per year: 0.25
Japan gun deaths per 100,000 people, per year: 0.04 or less

US homicides per 100,000 people, per year: 5.1
UK homicides per 100,000 people, per year: 1.2
Japan homicides per 100,000 people, per year: 0.5

Obviously there are a lot of other factors involved. But I have not seen any indication that the nations which have restrictive gun policies have exceedingly high rates of homicides or gun deaths, or that nations explode into hyperviolence when restrictions are imposed or increased.

 

[TurtleDude]

No.

Many nations have far more restrictive gun laws than the US, and much lower crime rates. At least one nation (Australia) has successfully reduced the rate of mass shootings when it restricted specific types of weapons.

At the risk of oversimpliflying, there's the old warhorse of US/UK/Japan comparisons.

US guns per 100 people: 101
UK guns per 100 people: 6.7
Japan guns per 100 people: 0.6

US gun deaths per 100,000 people, per year: 10.2
UK gun deaths per 100,000 people, per year: 0.25
Japan gun deaths per 100,000 people, per year: 0.04 or less

US homicides per 100,000 people, per year: 5.1
UK homicides per 100,000 people, per year: 1.2
Japan homicides per 100,000 people, per year: 0.5

Obviously there are a lot of other factors involved. But I have not seen any indication that the nations which have restrictive gun policies have exceedingly high rates of homicides or gun deaths, or that nations explode into hyperviolence when restrictions are imposed or increased.

yet Japanese living in gun saturated america have lower rates of gun violence than those in their home land -a nation that once executed anyone below a certain social rank who possessed a sword (why do you think nunchaku-a rice flail, Kama-a rice cutter, and Tonfa-a rice grinder-became weapons against Japanese tyranny in Okinawa)

 

[Linc]

Since this is not happening or the problem is too overwhelming, what is next? The border fence is not the only place I would put returning soldiers or current ones who should be reassigned due to need. It is time for security at home first. It is time to use our military wisely and clean up our problem areas.

Isn't that what most have already said? Enforce the laws already in place. Inner city local governments and law enforcement need to grow a pair and do it.

 

[blackjack50]

self defense, yes. Getting out of your vehicle when told not to is not self defense. Goshin brought up the statistics, not me. I did my homework like a good little teacher and read the stats.

Just FYI him getting out of the truck was perfectly legal. He wasn't ordered by an officer of the law to leave. He was told, "we don't need you to do that." But this isn't a Zimmerman debate thread. I agree that situation could have been avoided, but car accidents can be avoided by never driving or riding on a road.

 

[blackjack50]

Let's say they aren't and the opposite is true. You wouldn't really care and it wouldn't change your fanatical support of gun ownership, would it?

Does this make this another disingenuous OP?

High POT. Where is the kettle? Seriously. Don't go there bud.

You call us "boomstick lovers" and all of that. I mean. I take that as a compliment. I'm better prepared for a defensive crisis than you. I assume you don't own a gun right?

 

[BretJ]

Since this is not happening or the problem is too overwhelming, what is next? The border fence is not the only place I would put returning soldiers or current ones who should be reassigned due to need. It is time for security at home first. It is time to use our military wisely and clean up our problem areas.

Unfortunately, there is a pesky little restriction put into place by our Constitution, BOR and Posse Comitatus to prevent just that.

 

[Linc]

Especially when they're drunk. Many righties have tried to derail the thread using alcohol also. We've all heard the lame Z defense. Would you feel that way if Z and T were reversed? Why does anyone need to get out of their truck with a gun? Spare all of us the officer crap? And how is the murderous oxycodone capital of the world, Florida, these days?

Just FYI him getting out of the truck was perfectly legal. He wasn't ordered by an officer of the law to leave. He was told, "we don't need you to do that." But this isn't a Zimmerman debate thread. I agree that situation could have been avoided, but car accidents can be avoided by never driving or riding on a road.

 

[Linc]

Unfortunately, there is a pesky little restriction put into place by our Constitution, BOR and Posse Comitatus to prevent just that.

There's that pesky word again, often used when a real solution is offered and we find out who is not serious, either way. Would selective Martial Law make you happy? How about the Sedition Act during WW I? We're still at war you know. That way the R. Paul's could go to jail where they belong, right next to Snowden.

 

[BretJ]

There's that pesky word again, often used when a real solution is offered and we find out who is not serious, either way. Would selective Martial Law make you happy? How about the Sedition Act during WW I? We're still at war you know. That way the R. Paul's could go to jail where they belong, right next to Snowden.

So unless someone is willing to overlook Constitutional law, they are not serious?

What would make me happy is for the cities to actually enforce the laws currently in place. Martial law is not required. Just balls. What good is creating further laws and restriction knowing that only honest people will obey them?