• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Half Of 2015 Murder Increase Came From Three Cities

suggestion-if you are going to deny that your really motivation for supporting gun laws that are directed at legal gun owners is to harass lawful gun owners, its a good idea not to show such patent hatred for such people.

the fact is-gun control-and I define that as laws that impede, delay or prevent people who normally can legally own guns from obtaining more or certain types of guns or ammunition-has never been proven to decrease violent crime

all gun control has been proven to do is to impede or harass honest citizens. which of course is why its so popular with those who don't like the political lean of many gun owners. guns in the hands of honest people rarely cause problems

so when guns in the hands of honest people increase-crime almost never does

Especially when you categorically refuse to accept any and all such evidence that has ever been presented to you. It's not much different from, "The world is flat! It's never been proven that the world is round!"
 
1 --- read what I typed again... did my sentence say crime rate or did it say 'violent' crime rate? I will help you out it said violent crime rate.. which you just repeated. do you need glasses?
:roll:

I deliberately cited overall and violent crime figures. You cherry-picked one type, and cite a 0.2% increase in violent crime, and totally ignored other relevant factors. Hence, I reminded you of them.


2 --- San Antonio does -not- have the same violent crime rate (note I typed violent again just in case you get confused again) Houston does have about the same actually a little higher. I wouldn't live there.
My bad. Still, crime is pretty high in cities like Houston, and moderately high in Dallas, Corpus Christie, Ft Worth, San Antonio.

So tell me, what are the gun laws like in Texas?

Why are California cities like Anaheim, San Jose, San Diego, Riverside and Bakersfield safer than the TX cities I listed above?


The whole point I was making which is the point of significance is the cities who enact the strictest gun laws always seem to be among the worst violent crime rate cities. and that remains true despite your shuffling and literary gymnastics to try and divert this to something else.
That's because your point is based on an incredibly selective and uninformed position, and ultimately does not work.

• NYC has very strict gun laws, yet crime rates have fallen steadily, and neither crime nor violent crime rates rates are high
• Same for San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Sacramento etc
• Why do cities like Houston, Memphis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Nashville etc have high crime rates, despite relatively lax gun laws?

Of course, even what I'm saying is fairly basic. When we look at more thorough studies, there is still no evidence to support the belief that "more gun controls is correlated with, let alone causes, more crime (violent or otherwise).
 
:roll:

I deliberately cited overall and violent crime figures. You cherry-picked one type, and cite a 0.2% increase in violent crime, and totally ignored other relevant factors. Hence, I reminded you of them.



My bad. Still, crime is pretty high in cities like Houston, and moderately high in Dallas, Corpus Christie, Ft Worth, San Antonio.

So tell me, what are the gun laws like in Texas?

Why are California cities like Anaheim, San Jose, San Diego, Riverside and Bakersfield safer than the TX cities I listed above?



That's because your point is based on an incredibly selective and uninformed position, and ultimately does not work.

• NYC has very strict gun laws, yet crime rates have fallen steadily, and neither crime nor violent crime rates rates are high
• Same for San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Sacramento etc
• Why do cities like Houston, Memphis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Nashville etc have high crime rates, despite relatively lax gun laws?

Of course, even what I'm saying is fairly basic. When we look at more thorough studies, there is still no evidence to support the belief that "more gun controls is correlated with, let alone causes, more crime (violent or otherwise).


The whole thread is about 'murder' rates so obviously the subject is violent crimes. So nice try switching it out to all crimes to try and make your case and then accusing 'me' of cherry picking. what a tool.
 
The whole thread is about 'murder' rates so obviously the subject is violent crimes. So nice try switching it out to all crimes to try and make your case and then accusing 'me' of cherry picking. what a tool.
Good grief.

There are almost no cities that have low total crime rates, and high violent crime rates. The two track very closely.

Even when we are talking about violent crimes, your claims utterly fall apart. Allow me to be explicit, although I doubt it will help:

• NYC San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Sacramento, Los Angeles have very strict gun laws, yet violent crime rates have fallen steadily, and violent crime rates rates are not very high in those cities.

• Why do cities like Houston, Memphis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Nashville etc have high violent crime rates, despite relatively lax gun laws?

• Why is Florida the 9th most violent state? Louisiana, #8? South Carolina, #6? New Mexico, #5? Alaska, #4? Tennessee, #2?

• Numerous studies are far more thorough than this rather crude analysis. Why don't they show any significant correlations between gun control laws and high crime rates?

Nothing you've said, including your weak attempt to insult me or whining about semantics, qualifies as a response to any of these questions.
 
Especially when you categorically refuse to accept any and all such evidence that has ever been presented to you. It's not much different from, "The world is flat! It's never been proven that the world is round!"

your position is dishonest because your posts show your motivation for gun control is based on a cultural disgust of the conservative world view but you pretend its about crime control.

you have never ever presented ANY evidence that is remotely related to proving that harassing honest gun owners decreases violent crime
 
That is none of your concern, or business.

Oh, and everyone else seemed to understand but you, but of course the problem is with your comprehension.

Later
Well, for the record and to assist you in reading comprehension, I never wrote that you blamed Republicans. I specifically asked you if you blamed Republicans because you were not clear in your writing. As you recall, I thought that perhaps you were being passive aggressive and blaming someone or something without actually clearly coming out and stating blame.
Does this help?
 
Well, for the record and to assist you in reading comprehension, I never wrote that you blamed Republicans. I specifically asked you if you blamed Republicans because you were not clear in your writing. As you recall, I thought that perhaps you were being passive aggressive and blaming someone or something without actually clearly coming out and stating blame.
Does this help?

Not really

the conversation was like a week ago

I have lost interest
 
Back
Top Bottom