What is more important to you, life or guns? (1 Viewer)

[jaeger19]

You have no facts. They must not be your friends. Lol

Well.. except the ones I provided. and the ones you provided in your link. Which support my position.

 

[vegas giants]

Well.. except the ones I provided. and the ones you provided in your link. Which support my position.

But are they your friends?

 

[jaeger19]

But are they your friends?

Facts always are. Just not for you.

 

[vegas giants]

Facts always are. Just not for you.

Facts are your friends? Really? Lol

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Again that doesn't prove gun control works when the UK has already had low amount of homicides.Notice I said homicides not gun murders.Because murder is murder and doesn't give the victim's loved ones any relief if their loved ones were murdered with one weapons instead of another. The 1996 hand gun ban didn't stop mass shootings from happening.

And how do you PROVE something when there are so many variables getting in the way?

You can't PROVE this. You can present evidence and you can make an educated guess at best.

However you don't have anything. You just have doubt.

The UK has lower murder and far lower gun murder rates than the US because there isn't the ease of access to guns that the US has.


And frustratingly you're talking about a 1997 handgun ban not stopping a 1996 massacre. WHAT THE **** DUDE?

 

[TurtleDude]

And how do you PROVE something when there are so many variables getting in the way?

You can't PROVE this. You can present evidence and you can make an educated guess at best.

However you don't have anything. You just have doubt.

The UK has lower murder and far lower gun murder rates than the US because there isn't the ease of access to guns that the US has.


And frustratingly you're talking about a 1997 handgun ban not stopping a 1996 massacre. WHAT THE **** DUDE?

As Britain imposes more and more nanny state idiocy, that society becomes more dangerous. IN the USA, we have allowed millions of people to carry concealed weapons, and there are 40 million or more scary looking rifles in circulation than there were 25 years ago and our murder rates have gone DOWN. That is why the bannerrhoid politicians are hyperventilating about "mass shootings"

 

[jaeger19]

And how do you PROVE something when there are so many variables getting in the way?

You can't PROVE this. You can present evidence and you can make an educated guess at best.

However you don't have anything. You just have doubt.

The UK has lower murder and far lower gun murder rates than the US because there isn't the ease of access to guns that the US has.


And frustratingly you're talking about a 1997 handgun ban not stopping a 1996 massacre. WHAT THE **** DUDE?

Well first.. its the nature of statistics.

So while you cannot prove a causational relationship when things are just correlated.

However.. you can prove that things DON't have a causational relationship when things are NOT correlated.

When the UK enacted the 1996 hand gun ban.. murders went up.. exponentially for a number of years. Thus.. that's definitive proof that the hand gun ban.. did not have any or much effect on murder.

IF the hand gun ban was extremely effective.. then murders should have dropped precipitously. because the handgun ban;s effectiveness would outweigh other factors.

Now as to this:

The UK has lower murder and far lower gun murder rates than the US because there isn't the ease of access to guns that the US has.

Actually no. When it comes to violent crime which includes murder.. the UK has pretty comparable rates to the US and the best available evidence is that they have more violent crime.

Now.. when it comes to "gun murder".... yep probably.. because you are right.. fewer guns.

Just like people that don't ride bicycles.. don't get into bicycle accidents.

BUT that does not mean that getting rid of bicycles actually makes you safer. It just means that you cut down on bike accidents.

the same with firearms. When you compare countries with lax laws.. compared to the UK and Mexico.. with very stringent gun control.. and very little access to firearms.

You find that those countries. like Switzerland. or Canada.. or Australia.. also.. have comparable violent crime rates.. or less violent crime than the UK. And definitely less than mexico. '

Its proof that its really not about firearms. Its about other factors like poverty, access to healthcare, social mobility, population demographics and tension.. etc.

That's just the facts.

 

[vegas giants]

Well first.. its the nature of statistics.

So while you cannot prove a causational relationship when things are just correlated.

However.. you can prove that things DON't have a causational relationship when things are NOT correlated.

When the UK enacted the 1996 hand gun ban.. murders went up.. exponentially for a number of years. Thus.. that's definitive proof that the hand gun ban.. did not have any or much effect on murder.

IF the hand gun ban was extremely effective.. then murders should have dropped precipitously. because the handgun ban;s effectiveness would outweigh other factors.

Now as to this:



Actually no. When it comes to violent crime which includes murder.. the UK has pretty comparable rates to the US and the best available evidence is that they have more violent crime.

Now.. when it comes to "gun murder".... yep probably.. because you are right.. fewer guns.

Just like people that don't ride bicycles.. don't get into bicycle accidents.

BUT that does not mean that getting rid of bicycles actually makes you safer. It just means that you cut down on bike accidents.

the same with firearms. When you compare countries with lax laws.. compared to the UK and Mexico.. with very stringent gun control.. and very little access to firearms.

You find that those countries. like Switzerland. or Canada.. or Australia.. also.. have comparable violent crime rates.. or less violent crime than the UK. And definitely less than mexico. '

Its proof that its really not about firearms. Its about other factors like poverty, access to healthcare, social mobility, population demographics and tension.. etc.

That's just the facts.

But are the facts your friends?

 

[jaeger19]

But are the facts your friends?

In this case obviously yes.

 

[vegas giants]

In this case obviously yes.

So do you hang out and go bowling with these friends? Lol

 

[vegas giants]

Well first.. its the nature of statistics.

So while you cannot prove a causational relationship when things are just correlated.

However.. you can prove that things DON't have a causational relationship when things are NOT correlated.

When the UK enacted the 1996 hand gun ban.. murders went up.. exponentially for a number of years. Thus.. that's definitive proof that the hand gun ban.. did not have any or much effect on murder.

IF the hand gun ban was extremely effective.. then murders should have dropped precipitously. because the handgun ban;s effectiveness would outweigh other factors.

Now as to this:



Actually no. When it comes to violent crime which includes murder.. the UK has pretty comparable rates to the US and the best available evidence is that they have more violent crime.

Now.. when it comes to "gun murder".... yep probably.. because you are right.. fewer guns.

Just like people that don't ride bicycles.. don't get into bicycle accidents.

BUT that does not mean that getting rid of bicycles actually makes you safer. It just means that you cut down on bike accidents.

the same with firearms. When you compare countries with lax laws.. compared to the UK and Mexico.. with very stringent gun control.. and very little access to firearms.

You find that those countries. like Switzerland. or Canada.. or Australia.. also.. have comparable violent crime rates.. or less violent crime than the UK. And definitely less than mexico. '

Its proof that its really not about firearms. Its about other factors like poverty, access to healthcare, social mobility, population demographics and tension.. etc.

That's just the facts.

Now now....you know you cant compare us rates of crime to the UK because they ate classified differently.


Friends and facts. Lol

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Well first.. its the nature of statistics.

So while you cannot prove a causational relationship when things are just correlated.

However.. you can prove that things DON't have a causational relationship when things are NOT correlated.

When the UK enacted the 1996 hand gun ban.. murders went up.. exponentially for a number of years. Thus.. that's definitive proof that the hand gun ban.. did not have any or much effect on murder.

IF the hand gun ban was extremely effective.. then murders should have dropped precipitously. because the handgun ban;s effectiveness would outweigh other factors.

Now as to this:



Actually no. When it comes to violent crime which includes murder.. the UK has pretty comparable rates to the US and the best available evidence is that they have more violent crime.

Now.. when it comes to "gun murder".... yep probably.. because you are right.. fewer guns.

Just like people that don't ride bicycles.. don't get into bicycle accidents.

BUT that does not mean that getting rid of bicycles actually makes you safer. It just means that you cut down on bike accidents.

the same with firearms. When you compare countries with lax laws.. compared to the UK and Mexico.. with very stringent gun control.. and very little access to firearms.

You find that those countries. like Switzerland. or Canada.. or Australia.. also.. have comparable violent crime rates.. or less violent crime than the UK. And definitely less than mexico. '

Its proof that its really not about firearms. Its about other factors like poverty, access to healthcare, social mobility, population demographics and tension.. etc.

That's just the facts.

The problem here is that the handgun ban wasn't designed to deal with the murder rate. It was designed to stop mass murder.

The reality is that previous gun laws were designed to deal with gun murders. And when gun murders went up, due to Yardies and other such people, the UK police were able to deal with this problem and crime went DOWN later on.

"the best available evidence".... which is what?

Though the reality is in the UK right now that crime is rising. 9 years of a conservative government will do that. They've pulled funding from everything, claiming "austerity" even when the economy was booming.

Also the US and UK are kind of different. The US has inner cities that would make you **** yourself. Crime is so high, places like St. Louis, Detroit etc. Then there are places that are amazingly safe. The UK doesn't really have such stark contrast. London is probably the worst place for crime, but it's better than New York. Then you have smaller places which won't be as safe as similar sized US towns in certain states.

 

[jaeger19]

The problem here is that the handgun ban wasn't designed to deal with the murder rate. It was designed to stop mass murder.

.

Well..and that shows my other point here. So.. while you were trying to "stop mass murder"..with the handgun ban... actual murder rate went up exponentially. So you basically see law abiding citizens lose their firearms.. and meanwhile.. overall.. they are less safe.

Seriously.. whats the difference if your son is murdered in a mass murder.. or murdered singly? ARe you going to be like "well..at least he didn't die in a mass murder?".

Would you rather live in a society that had one mass murder where 5 people were killed (giving you a 1/10 chance of being killed) ... or live in a society that had no mass murder.. but their murder rate was so high that you had a 6/10 chance of being murdered?

the best available evidence".... which is what?

The evidence on gun ownership and crime rates. That shows there is little correlation to no correlation between high crime rates and firearms ownership.

Mexico has low gun ownership and tight gun control.. and is very much more dangerous than the US.

Though the reality is in the UK right now that crime is rising. 9 years of a conservative government will do that. They've pulled funding from everything, claiming "austerity" even when the economy was booming.

Bingo.. despite having gun laws so draconian their own Olympic shooting team could not practice in the UK. You just made the case that its those other things.. things like safety nets, police on the ground.. etc.. that have more to do with crime.. than gun control.

Also the US and UK are kind of different. The US has inner cities that would make you **** yourself. Crime is so high, places like St. Louis, Detroit etc.

Which coincidently have some of the most extreme gun control... hmmm...

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Well..and that shows my other point here. So.. while you were trying to "stop mass murder"..with the handgun ban... actual murder rate went up exponentially. So you basically see law abiding citizens lose their firearms.. and meanwhile.. overall.. they are less safe.

Seriously.. whats the difference if your son is murdered in a mass murder.. or murdered singly? ARe you going to be like "well..at least he didn't die in a mass murder?".

Would you rather live in a society that had one mass murder where 5 people were killed (giving you a 1/10 chance of being killed) ... or live in a society that had no mass murder.. but their murder rate was so high that you had a 6/10 chance of being murdered?



The evidence on gun ownership and crime rates. That shows there is little correlation to no correlation between high crime rates and firearms ownership.

Mexico has low gun ownership and tight gun control.. and is very much more dangerous than the US.



Bingo.. despite having gun laws so draconian their own Olympic shooting team could not practice in the UK. You just made the case that its those other things.. things like safety nets, police on the ground.. etc.. that have more to do with crime.. than gun control.

Which coincidently have some of the most extreme gun control... hmmm...

Oh sigh....

No, law abiding citizens did not lose their ability to use handguns to defend themselves, because almost no one was using handguns to defend themselves.

The firearms act of 1968 already was quite restrictive:

Firearms Act 1968 - a list of prohibited items in 1968


Firearms Act 1968 and Firearms Act 1968 and Firearms Act 1968 - potentially this prevents individuals carrying arms for self defense in the first place

This wasn't a guns on the streets on day, then guns not on the streets the day after kind of law in 1996.

What's the difference if they're murdered en masse or individually? Dunno, wrong question. The question is "what's the difference between being murdered and not being murdered?"

Because the UK has a murder rate much lower than the US. These gun laws save the lives of, in comparison with the US, 2,400 lives a year, or something like that.

No, I never said the amount of guns had a correlation with the number of murders. The ease of access to guns and the number of murders, now there's a completely different matter.

Quite difficult to quantify the ease of access to guns, but in the US guns are very easily available, whereas in Switzerland they're not. Even though Switzerland has quite a lot of guns.


Yes, I'm not suggesting this whole issue is just about guns. Taking guns away doesn't solve all the problems. However guns on the streets are a problem. Ease of access is a problem. But then again the US has a political system which is corrupt and nothing really ever gets done, other than politicians taking home their wages.

And US inner cities have easy access to firearms. Because there aren't borders between inner cities and the rest of the country.

 

[DebateChallenge]

For most gun owners, guns are much more important than other's lives.

Depends on what "others" you're talking about. Are guns much more important than criminal's lives? Absolutely. And that's why guns are often used to stop criminals. Are guns more important than innocent people's lives? Irrelevant. Most gun owners don't use guns to shoot innocent people.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I choose option C both life and guns. I like life and I like guns and they both go together like peanut butter and jelly. So yes. You think a SAW is bad just wait till you see .223 mini gun in action. 10,000 rounds a minute. A literal bullet hose. Not hard to make at all. Main problem is keeping the hungry thing fed with ammunition and that aint cheap. The ammunition costs $2300.00 for the cheap Russian crap 10,000 about one full minute of firing time. To manufacture the gun would cost around $7500.00 or so depending on the parts and materials and process's used and the machining costs. You fire 30,000 thousand rounds through it and you spend in ammo what you spent to make it. XM214 Microgun - Wikipedia

Sounds like a rich man's gun.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What, like the UK has a murder rate 5 times lower than the US murder rate?

Even London, on the news for being really violent, has a murder rate lower than the US average, which is lower than any US city with a population of 280,000 or more.

Perspective. London has a murder rate of 1.5. The US's is about 5. St Louis's is 66.07.

On the contrary YouTube

 

[Fishking]

Every heard the of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is in the Declaration of Independence. I find it interesting that as part of our God given rights, life comes before liberty and happiness. In our country that is no longer true. Life seems to come after guns. To so many Americans the loss of life is just what people have to pay so they can have all and any type of guns they want. Some on this board actually believe that the weapons they should be able to own include something like the M259 Saw, a weapon that is fully automatic and can put out up to 800 rounds per minute. Just think how many lives would have been lost if the Dayton or El Paso shooter would have been able to buy that kind of weapon at any gun shop? I come from a military family and none of my family think that the public should be able to buy military weapons. I think we ought to change the Declaration to say instead of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to "semiautomatics rifles, automatic pistols and body armor". Doesn't have the same punch, but is more closely in tune with modern day America.

Life...which is why I support the right to bear arms. Question: What institution is responsible for the most murders since basically forever?

Is it:

A) Private Citizens.

or

B) Governments.

 

[TurtleDude]

Life...which is why I support the right to bear arms. Question: What institution is responsible for the most murders since basically forever?

Is it:

A) Private Citizens.

or

B) Governments.

many gun banners worship big government and are mortified at the thought that some citizens might actually want to resist a tyrannical or communist state.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Are cars designed to make child porn?

No, cars are designed to burn fossil fuels, or in some cases, use electricity, to power a process which turns wheels and in doing so, moves the car.

Tell me what was an AR-15 designed to do?

Throw 5.56 caliber slugs at speeds that range from about 850 m/s to 993 m/s depending on the weight of the slug.

 

[Fishking]

many gun banners worship big government and are mortified at the thought that some citizens might actually want to resist a tyrannical or communist state.

History is tough!

 

[PirateMk1]

Sounds like a rich man's gun.

Exactly, somebody who can literally burn through hundred dollar bills like they were pennies.

 

[TurtleDude]

History is tough!

given how many people demonstrate abject ignorance of it-I suspect you are correct

 

[Frigidweirdo]

On the contrary YouTube

If you wish to make an argument, I'm fine with that. If you want me to go off to youtube videos and try and search through them wondering which part of it is relevant, you can think again.

 

[DebateChallenge]

If only the NRA adherents were honest, and admit that our Freedoms lead to more gun deaths. There is no question about that!!!

Maybe more gun deaths but fewer people will have their lives cut short overall. After all, there are other ways to have your life cut short besides guns.