ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Wow, you mean if guns were never invented people wouldn't be shot with guns? Got a point here?
Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Then why must you distort it's conclusion in order to argue against it? Why have 4 people so far in this thread resorted to distorting what I am arguing? The only solid conclusion purported by the study is the only one I have touted and yet Doer is clamoring to argue against bans, which is never even suggested. Cannabineer is transforming "more guns = more shootings" into "more crime = more violence" (an obvious distortion) and you're saying some shit about frying pans and child abuse on the 3 stooges.
This is really getting old going page after page dispelling dishonest interpretations of what I am saying instead of actually having a response to what am actually arguing.
I have done my best to be courteous about it but I'm beginning to think that some of you need to feel like there is someone to argue with who does not want you to have guns.
I think you should fucking own hundreds of guns if they make you happy.
There is only one thing a gun can do and that is to fire projectiles (shooting). If there are more of them (and also more crime) in a given area, that area will have more shootings. That is the only effet guns have on crime. If you want to address crime, you won't have any success by banning guns alone. I have never made that claim, so kindly please, either reply to what I am saying, or don't reply. But to distort my argument, so that you can reply to a distortion, is simply rude.
I expect rudeness from certain people, including yourself, but not from Cannabineer.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Allow me to explain what i see in the post to which I responded. I see this, quoted verbatim.
I do not follow, and I do not agree. A larger number of legally-held guns will increase total shootings but decrease the ones that matter: nonrighteous/not legally sanctioned acts of civilian defense. I see an unwillingness to sort righteous from criminal shootings, and those intentional shootings from accidents, and any of those from suicides. Each should be treated as a separate legal and moral category in my considered opinion. Otherwise the charge that there is an anti-(civilian gun carry) agenda here has traction, your protestations notwithstanding.
I flatly disagree with your statement that more guns will not reduce crime. It has been shown repeatedly in different areas that increasing access to civil gun ownership, especially the ones concealed-carry suitable, drops overall violent crime. I doubt nonviolent crime need figure into this discussion. I further think that drawing a gun is a reasonable response to a drawn knife or a produced club.
So I maintain that what I wrote is not a distortion but a disambiguation, a correction. I also don't accept the implied premise that successful disagreement is rude. If anything, the insinuation that doing so is rude is ... well, not the paragon of polite conduct imo, and plain passive aggression.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that if an area is a high crime region, that more guns is the answer?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
It depends on what you mean by "more guns". That phrase is too indefinite for me. I laid out what i think the boundaries should be: more permission for gun carry by civilians. No arbitrary refusals by police chiefs. No restrictive "may-carry" laws. No artificial boundaries on what constitutes self-defense or assault. And above all, no double standard for civilians in uniform like police forces.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Conditionally. Only conditionally.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Then at the very least, your disagreement with one of my previous comments must not have been as flat as you described.
budlover13
King Tut
To reduce crime, yes. To reduce shootings? Only in the long run imo.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
your assertions are so patently dopey that the only response is to mock yout
your cited "study" was pure horseshit, and the quote you cited was a reference to A DIFFERENT "STUDY" which was only marginally less valid than your own citation, yet this "study" remains a primary tool in the gun banner's arsenal.
making the same assertions as the gun ban frootloops draws the conclusion that you are a gun ban froot loop as well.
if you wish to make an argument which is not part of the gun ban froot loop rainbow, dont try to support your perplexing incomprehensible agenda with gun ban froot loop nuttiness.
i still dont know where you purport to stand on this issue, but it seems to be youre saying that those persons who are most likely to be the VICTIMS of crime should be the ones facing the highest hurdles to actually own a firearm for their defense.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
This is true.
There are other ways of correcting this however. People can have guns, lots of em, they just need to be held more accountable if they get stolen, lost, negligently used in an accident, or used in a crime. A reasonable expectation for firearm security isn't out of the question, IMO. I think the main problem is that American's and 'due diligence' when it comes to firearms, is virtually unheard of.
For whatever reason, there doesn't appear to be a (rampant) problem with knives, or frying pans, or child abuse in the USA. There does however, appear to be a disproportionate amount of 'incidents' happening with firearms.
Most likely there are many causes for this, as opposed to a single cause; but I'm not capable of determining why with the knowledge and resources I possess. It is however, pretty easy to 'see' the problem just by looking at the stats.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So if someone's car is stolen and the thief runs someone over...
Its the owners fault?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
How dare you? Child abuse kills many more than guns. It is the PROBLEM. And you total, head up ass, numb nuts about guns show your true colors. Political droids who really do not care and only pretend.
If you gave a shit about people you would find this gun thing to be a sick hide, to ignore child abuse.
The United States leads the developed world in child-abuse deaths, according to the organization Every Child Matters. More than 20,000 American children have died over the past decade in their own homes because of family members, with about 75% being under four years of age and nearly half being under one. The U.S. child-maltreatment death rate is three times higher than Canadas and 11 times that of Italy.
You sickos are trying to say guns are a problem when the Constitution also and MAINLY Protects the Life of babies? There is no baby nut lobby...why the hell not. The DEMS are as corrupt as PUBS that is why. Moo.... Cows along the fence.
1 million gun saves vs ONLY 10,000 unlawful gun deaths and then there is child abuse. So, shame on us all. This is a real problem that affects a society deeply. It create the crimials. It is associated with low intellect. It causes suffering for all, while the idiots hand wave about guns.
Crime is from child abuse. It is the dirty secret of the vicious circle of poverty. We see why the DEMS turn a blind eye to all manner of child abuse, especially sexual.
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/NCANationalStatistics
2011 NATIONAL ABUSE STATISTICS[SUP] 2[/SUP]
- Approximately 681,000 children were victims of maltreatment (unique instances).
- 46 states reported approximately 3.3 million children received preventative services from Child Protective Services agencies in the United States.
- Children younger than one year had the highest rate of victimization of 21.2 per 1,000 children in the national population of the same age.
- Of the children who experienced maltreatment or abuse, over 75% suffered neglect; more than 15% suffered physical abuse; and just under 10% suffered sexual abuse.
- More than 78%of reported child fatalities as a result of abuse and neglect were caused by one or more of the child victims parents.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That doesn't stop you from pretending to know and ascribing views to me.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
If a person leaves their car running, with the E-brake on and the car in drive, and someone steals it and kills someone they should be partially responsible.
Likewise if someone leaves their loaded gun on the coffee table and it gets stolen or a kid shoots themselves, they should be partially responsible too.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
If a semantic gripe about "flatly" is all you have, you concede the core of the argument.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Do not scapegoat the gun buyer. If a stolen gun is used in a crime, blame the thief and the assailant. Shifting blame onto the original good-faith purchaser simply because it reduces police effort (and gives the what-about-the-children crowd an easy target) is corrupt. It also feeds a pernicious idea in modern society ... the scapegoat of liability.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It's not semantic, but it does touch on the core of my argument. I concede nothing except that my argument has thus far hinged upon a disputed fact. I hold the following two statements to be factual:
More guns = more shootings.
Bans do not solve the problem.
The first of these statements has been in dispute. Doer is not even willing to acknowledge that I consider the second a fact, but he clearly agrees it is a fact. My argument is that the pro-gun vs anti-gun debate is a false dichotomy, with two opposing camps using fear tactics to further their agendas.
In other words, the very jist of my argument is that this is not some cut and dry, black and white, two sided debate. So when I point out that you do not "flatly disagree" as you say, but stipulate conditions, it is not a semantic ploy. I am showing you that you agree with part of my argument, namely the jist of my argument, that this is not cut and dry or black and white.
The conclusion of my argument is also quite simple. I conclude that neither camp is based on logic, but on rhetoric. I conclude that rhetoric is much more dangerous than guns are.
The following is a separate but related argument sharing a premise with the first.
I also do believe that the presence of guns will leave no mark on crime statistics other than to impact the nature of some of these crimes. There will still be violence, because violence is not a result of gun ownership. If a violent criminal does not have a gun, they will stab and poison their victims. Therefore if a measure is to succeed in reducing crime, it will not focus on guns, since guns do not solve or cause crime.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That is a less declarative statement than more guns = more shootings, which is unconditional.
I'll dial it back to say, "sometimes yes and sometimes no". I was interested in breaking the unconditional tone of your simple equation there. It doesn't hold universally, and stating it so simply implies general validity imo.
It does depend on the initial conditions.
In US cities where gun control is vigorously pursued, nonpolice guns concentrate into the hands of the criminally bold. Increase carry privileges for civilians there, and more guns will = less shootings. The deterrence effect will kick in.
As you point out, in rural, gun-permissive settings where people have reached an equilibrium modus vivendi with the gun, more guns will have no real effect.
I think that focus on "shootings" is too narrow. While you can claim that that is moving the goalposts, I would say that it is restating to focus on the "real problem" ... overall violent crime. If we look at violent crime, the correlation less guns = more crime has been proven in regions of the US and in parts of the British Commonwealth. Note the surge in violent, albeit nongun, crime brought about by firearm confiscation programs.
I'll dial it back to say, "sometimes yes and sometimes no". I was interested in breaking the unconditional tone of your simple equation there. It doesn't hold universally, and stating it so simply implies general validity imo.
It does depend on the initial conditions.
In US cities where gun control is vigorously pursued, nonpolice guns concentrate into the hands of the criminally bold. Increase carry privileges for civilians there, and more guns will = less shootings. The deterrence effect will kick in.
As you point out, in rural, gun-permissive settings where people have reached an equilibrium modus vivendi with the gun, more guns will have no real effect.
I think that focus on "shootings" is too narrow. While you can claim that that is moving the goalposts, I would say that it is restating to focus on the "real problem" ... overall violent crime. If we look at violent crime, the correlation less guns = more crime has been proven in regions of the US and in parts of the British Commonwealth. Note the surge in violent, albeit nongun, crime brought about by firearm confiscation programs.