• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Surge in gun deaths in states relaxing their gun laws.

Crime is a complex phenomena with many variables.
But it's predominantly human behavior. Objects don't cause it.
Cause-and-effect studies show that the presence and deregulation of guns makes a big difference- it’s one of the more important variables.
So everyone must give up rights so that police can have an excuse for being terrible?

Why do you want to excuse incompetence of officials? Is it because gun owners disagree with you politically about things and they need to pay for that?
 
I answered the question. You failed to understand.

Use a dictionary if you have problems understanding an answer.
Well, my opinion of you is reinforced.
 
Comments so ridiculous that only an academic could come up with them.

Possession of guns does not increase risk of suicide. Unless these academics show that each gun has a little demon that possesses the mind of the person who owns it this is garbage in the one should listen to it.
I would say that his knowledge of the subject is only Google deep but I think he has gone beyond that to ChatGPT deep.
 
You can't refute either of my studies. Too bad for you.
Your studies are bogus and lacking peer review. Nothing to refute. Find a study that stands up to journalistic standards and I'll consider refutation.
 
Last edited:
Sure. That's why observational studies undergo statistical analysis on their data to tease out the causative weight of all the different variables.

Just because people are living longer, but also eating more fat and salt, does not mean fat and salt are good for you.

That isn't a response to my post. That's a waffling attempt to obfuscate.

You said more guns = more violent crime, and it simply isn't true.

Sure. There are all sorts of variables involved. Different ones are at work in different countries and locations. But that’s what these studies are designed to do: tease out, isolate, and study each variable independently.
 
You asserted a specific relationship between total firearms and firearm violence. That is incorrect.

She isn't the one who claimed more guns = more violent crime.

Don't make ignorant universal misrepresentation and you will have a conversation.
Senseless statement. Whatever you're talking about, I'm pretty sure it didn't happen.
 
It would depend on the observations. We already have them for the guns. If rope hanging was also as big a problem, I think it would be interesting to then start looking into measures which might be helpful. Wouldn't you be interested and curious to find out and save lives?

But currently ropes are not as big a problem, so these studies are just not getting done.
Guns aren’t a problem either. They are completely irrelevant to suicide and homicide rates.
 
What causation limb? That more guns=more violent crime? It was already posted.
Violent crime rates are down while guns are up. Whoops.
I can post it again if you missed it, but just scroll back.

The gun suicide rate in the US was about 27,300 deaths in 2023. That's about half the number of American soldiers who died in the entirety of the Vietnam War- in one year.

 
Your studies are bogus and lacking peer review. Nothing to refute. Find a study that stands up to journalistic standards and I'll consider refutation.
Did I upset you?

I posted two studies. One is from the CDC. The way that this works is that refute my studies with other studies. Saying that studies you don't like are "bogus" without a supporting argument is just poor form old chap.
 
Did I upset you?
Seems like I upset you
I posted two studies. One is from the CDC. The way that this works is that refute my studies with other studies. Saying that studies you don't like are "bogus" without a supporting argument is just poor form old chap.
Not how it works, the studies must be peer reviewed. The CDC study was already debunked. Poor form old chap!
 
Crime is a complex phenomena with many variables. Cause-and-effect studies show that the presence and deregulation of guns makes a big difference- it’s one of the more important variables.
Nope. As you have been repeatedly shown, guns are irrelevant to homicide, suicide and violent crime rates.
 
They are using the same techniques that cigarettes cause cancer. were they saying each cigarette has a little demon inside?

Smoking cigarettes causes cancer.

About 100 million gun owners shoot their guns without harming anyone.
 
Your studies are bogus and lacking peer review. Nothing to refute. Find a study that stands up to journalistic standards and I'll consider refutation.

Haha! Edited in the nick of time?
 
Seems like I upset you

Not how it works, the studies must be peer reviewed. The CDC study was already debunked. Poor form old chap!
Wow, I see you changed your post insulting me. I shouldn't have replied for 30 minutes. If you feel strongly about your insults, at least have the courage to leave them up.
 
You asserted a specific relationship between total firearms and firearm violence. That is incorrect.

No...I demonstrated I had a very different argument than you listed.

I provided my premise. With sourced numbers and a proportion. YOu refused to address it directly

Don't make ignorant universal misrepresentation and you will have a conversation.

Dont lie and maybe you'll eventually progress into a role where you can respond to a debate honesty instead of using driveby snark and personal attacks ;)
 
Sure. You can make that choice too.
No fear. I do not fabricate concerns about personal safety or exaggerate the risk of crime.
You admit to fear and that validates your unnecessary need for self-defense firearms.
 
No fear. I do not fabricate concerns about personal safety or exaggerate the risk of crime.
If you're not afraid then people should be allowed to have all the guns they want. Your entire position is based on fear
You admit to fear and that validates your unnecessary need for self-defense firearms.
Without self-defense you have no rights. Self defense is necessary for All Rights.

You can call that fear if it helps you cope with reality, but it's truth.
 
No...I demonstrated I had a very different position than you listed.

I provided it. With sourced numbers and a proportion. YOu refused to address it directly
You made an incorrect calculation intended to misrepresent the risk of firearm violence.
Dont lie and maybe you'll eventually progress into a role where you can respond to a debate honesty instead of using driveby snark and personal attacks ;)
I think the lying comes from those, such as yourself, who try to diminish or misrepresent or rationalize the significance of tens of thousands of firearm deaths and injuries.
 
Wow, I see you changed your post insulting me. I shouldn't have replied for 30 minutes. If you feel strongly about your insults, at least have the courage to leave them up.
 
Back
Top Bottom