58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[Stripe]

Now here's a little something on point for you, a link to a recent release by a Stanford University study on whether good guys carrying guns reduces crime.

It's a data-free, self-absorbed, fallacious piece of propaganda.

Heck, they can't even describe their findings correctly.

"Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue found that states that adopted right-to-carry laws have experienced a 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws."

 

[jsanford108]

I'll repeat my Detroit/Windsor example - one city mired in a downward spiral of gun violence while the other went 27 months without a homicide.

Both are within a mile of each other, separated only by the Detroit River and international border - but world's apart when it comes to their approach to guns!

Windsor, Ontario, Canada has no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment, licences hunting rifles and shotguns, but places severe restrictions on handguns and bans assault rifles - both of which appear to be the weapons of choice involving homicides.

This is a false equivalence.

Compare two relatively similar US cities, one with high gun restrictions and one without. That is more genuine than two unrelated cities, with two unrelated federal rights/law.

Also, we are the only country, if I am not mistaken, which has a right to bear arms. So, again, false equivalence.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm confused, this link has The US ranked 11th at 10.54 per 100,000 and Switzerland ranked 24th at 3.01 per 100,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
But that's an incomplete list that doesn't have Iraq or Syria.

Mine is pretty recent and linked. What's the Wiki source and how old is it?

 

[Town Heretic]

Thanks for declaring victory and ignoring the conversation.

Just noting your attempt to reduce the fact that eliminating weapons capable of producing a Las Vegas nightmare to a simplistic "grass is green" bit isn't really a rebuttal.

I didn't claim to have an understanding of anything.

Then I guess we can agree on one fact after all.

Your narrative is that more regulations improve the situation.

Well, at least I've improved the appearance of your argument, but no. My argument is that universal laws eliminating particular guns and certain related objects, like bump stocks and large clips, have been empirically proved to dramatically impact deaths by firearms and curtail mass shootings. There's literally no way to argue against that, because it's relating demonstrable fact.

The only real question involves the particulars, unless a person is defending the status quo.

You will do anything to avoid a rational examination of that idea.

Some might say attempting to engage you in constructive conversation is a solid support for that, but I'm an optimist.

 

[Ktoyou]

Just for clarification, an assault rifle is something only the military and law enforcement has, legally, for an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon. Yes, there are semi-automatic rifles styled to look like assault rifles, but just because something appears to be the same on the outside does not it the same in functionality.

It's like how a desktop computer can appear to be the same as a server on the outside but a desktop does not have the same functionality a server has.

Like it, or lump it, we still call AR 15 rifles, SKS rifles and semiautomatic modified AK47 rifle assault rifles.

 

[fool]

Mine is pretty recent and linked. What's the Wiki source and how old is it?

The article has 80 references, looks like the Switzerland stats are 2017 and the US 2014.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Queen Victoria's Grandfather tried to take our guns away at Lexington and Concord.
Elizabeth the II's face is on the currency of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a couple other places.
Don't tell me how great taking away gun rights works in any of those places because the US was entirely founded on not letting her great great great great Grandfather take away ours.

Um, yeah, my comment really had as much to do with Queen Victoria and any relatives associated as Stripe has to do with the regal in general if you'd read it in context. Still, carry on and go on about how great guns are etc...

 

[fool]

I'll repeat my Detroit/Windsor example - one city mired in a downward spiral of gun violence while the other went 27 months without a homicide.

Both are within a mile of each other, separated only by the Detroit River and international border - but world's apart when it comes to their approach to guns!

Windsor, Ontario, Canada has no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment, licences hunting rifles and shotguns, but places severe restrictions on handguns and bans assault rifles - both of which appear to be the weapons of choice involving homicides.

And I'll direct you you to post #213 in this thread for my rebuttal since you missed it the first time and the second time it was referenced to you, here it is again;

No need to go across the river, the City of Livonia is adjacent to Detroit and only had zero murders for a population of 94,000, about half the size of Windsor.
If you want to make a Windsor size sample ad Dearborn and their one murder for 95,000 people.
Two cities that border Detroit and have the second amendment.

Are you going to address this or just keep repeating your defeated claim?
We'll remember, we always remeber.

 

[fool]

Um, yeah, my comment really had as much to do with Queen Victoria and any relatives associated as Stripe has to do with the regal in general if you'd read it in context. Still, carry on and go on about how great guns are etc...

Stripe is from New Zealand, a country that has QE2 on their money. She was his Queen.
In the US we cast aside our monarch with great blood shed, the great great great great grandfather of the woman on your money.
If you don't understand that you can't begin to understand the U.S.

 

[fool]

Stripe is from New Zealand, a country that has QE2 on their money. She was his Queen.
In the US we cast aside our monarch with great blood shed, the great great great great grandfather of the woman on your money.
If you don't understand that you can't begin to understand the U.S.

Here's actual footage of drawings people made later from descriptions of written accounts;
http://www.history.com/topics/ameri...revolutionary-battle-at-lexington-and-concord

 

[Yorzhik]

After a census on who owns guns,

And that's the point. Outside of urban areas, people own a lot more guns per capita. Urban areas generally have a great deal more restrictions on guns. If one removes big cities from US crime stats, crime rates are some of the best in the western world.

And when we ask violent criminals why they did their violent crime, we find that in almost every case there is gang involvement, black markets, and broken families.

These problems will not go away no matter what gun regulations you pass. Solve the problems that criminals give as the reason for their crime (and they aren't that hard to solve). Don't take away stuff from people outside urban areas that don't have the problem you are trying to solve.

Now here's a little something on point for you, a link to a recent release by a Stanford University study on whether good guys carrying guns reduces crime.

That study has been around for a few years and it was shown to have cherry-picked data and bad models when it came out.

You spend a lot of time looking at studies and stats that have been refuted. And since you keep bringing them up it doesn't do much to try and get through to the little echo chamber in your own head.

If the following bullet points are true, you wouldn't have an argument would you?

-Australia's violent crime rate didn't change after their gun ban in any way from established trends.

-The US's violent crime rate is concentrated in cities where there are less guns per capita.

-You keep telling people in rural areas they are the reason for the violence in the cities.

-You confuse 'poverty', that hurts people (up to and including death) in ways that have less to do with violent crime, with 'income disparity' that correlates very closely to violent crime.

 

[Town Heretic]

And that's the point. Outside of urban areas, people own a lot more guns per capita. Urban areas generally have a great deal more restrictions on guns. If one removes big cities from US crime stats, crime rates are some of the best in the western world.

Cite to studies in support and data. But again, the problem you run into is simple and this:

Every Western democracy with universal and stronger gun laws has a great deal less firearm violence and death. And fewer mass shootings. Australia in particular. And all of them have rural and urban areas, as we do. Everything else you're throwing like spaghetti against a wall does nothing to that point and if the point is to relegate the ridiculous number of mass shootings and deaths in this country to the exception we're going to have to look at the examples of what works and emulate it.

These problems will not go away no matter what gun regulations you pass.

Significantly reducing gun violence isn't going to solve any other problem. But then, curing cancer wouldn't necessarily do anything for diabetes, but that's no argument against curing cancer.

You spend a lot of time looking at studies and stats that have been refuted.

No, but you spend most of your time declaring without authority. Any parrot can be taught that trick. Else, and for the last time until you address it:

Every other Western democracy has significant and universal gun laws and every single one of them does a dramatically better job at safeguarding their citizens. Since the goal here is to safeguard our citizens, it doesn't matter who you blame it on, city or country. Those other countries have both rural and urban populations as well.

Nothing anyone trying to bury that fact has brought to the table has in any way negated that clear, empirically verifiable and objectively irrefutable fact.

 

[Nihilo]

The RKBA is already severely infringed in this country, virtually universally. In virtually all other Western countries, the RKBA is virtually dead, beat into submission by terrorists successfully deceiving the people to infringe their own human RKBA.

If not for terrorists and terrorism, we would not be deceived into infringing upon our human RKBA. There's no other human right being assaulted and battered constantly and continually and unendingly by lying terrorists and terrorist liars, as the RKBA.

 

[Gary K]

Like it, or lump it, we still call AR 15 rifles, SKS rifles and semiautomatic modified AK47 rifle assault rifles.

You can call it whatever you like, but that doesn't mean you won't be wrong/dishonest in doing so. A semi-automatic is not an assault rifle. That you don't care that you use a dishonest terminology is telling. It doesn't do anything for your cause, it only makes you look dishonest, but that's your privilege to do to yourself. You want to insist on making yourself look that way? Well, that's your right. I think its self-defeating, destructive, and exactly the wrong thing to do, but you will do as you please.

 

[Stripe]

Just noting your attempt to reduce the fact that eliminating weapons capable of producing a Las Vegas nightmare to a simplistic "grass is green" bit isn't really a rebuttal.

Surprise, surprise, but this isn't the thing I have disagreed with you on. You have no idea what my point is, do you?

Then I guess we can agree on one fact after all.

You're an idiot.

Universal laws eliminating particular guns and certain related objects, like bump stocks and large clips, have been empirically proved to dramatically impact deaths by firearms and curtail mass shootings. There's literally no way to argue against that, because it's relating demonstrable fact.

In other news, the sky is blue.

The only real question involves the particulars, unless a person is defending the status quo.

No.

This is just you demanding that your way is the only way. Your "particulars" have been challenged. Your response is to continue on as if your narrative is fact.

Some might say attempting to engage you in constructive conversation is foolhardy, but I'm an optimist.

 

[Stripe]

She was his Queen.

She still is. :noid:

 

[Stripe]

Cite to studies in support and data.

So you can ignore them?

 

[Stripe]

What's a RKBA? :noid:

 

[Nihilo]

What's a RKBA? :noid:

Quoted from the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, an acronym for the human/civil Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

[Town Heretic]

So you can ignore them?

Ironic in literally every way possible.

You're an idiot.

If only you showed the same dedication to the actual topic.

Let's end this waste of my time on an appropriate note.

Some might say attempting to engage you in constructive conversation is foolhardy, but I'm an optimist.

Enjoy the cracker.