Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.

[abandonconflict]

That is a less declarative statement than more guns = more shootings, which is unconditional.

Increase carry privileges for civilians there, and more guns will = less shootings. The deterrence effect will kick in.


I think that focus on "shootings" is too narrow.

I didn't say, "more guns = more murder" or "more guns = more crime".

Shooting is what guns do.

The notion that more guns could ever, under any circumstances lead to less use of guns is absurd. If there is less crime in an area, it is because that area has an economy which allows for abundant opportunities for one to legitimately make a living. Conversely, it is inevitable that areas with fewer such opportunities will have more crime. Crime likely can not be eradicated but most of it can be and the amount of guns in either type of area will have no impact on the amount of crime other than the number of shootings, since that is what guns do.

 

[Harrekin]

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.

Iv said it once and I'll say it again, guns are very difficult to license here...yet our criminals have fully auto AK-47's, Mac11 us machine guns and brand new Glocks...

Less guns =/= less shooting and alot of the time (statistically speaking) seems to actually increase violent crime overall.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

gun without humans = metal
Gun with human control=dangerious
People without guns=still dangerious


its definitively the gun . . . .stop the guns from corrupting all these good people

in new zealnd and Australia gun crimes, after gun were banned /regulated, went way way down but in direct correlation violent crimes with weapons went up . . no gun . . have rock .. no gun . .have pipe.brick, piece of glass, screw driver, apile of leaves can be deadly if intended to be so . .

fix youth disparity , correct educational problems and create outlets for people to make a living off of vs big business increasing profit margins by sending more and more work over seas

 

[abandonconflict]

Less guns =/= less shooting and alot of the time (statistically speaking) seems to actually increase violent crime overall.

Less guns does = less shooting. Bans simply don't work. Bans drive up the price of guns, enticing dealers and making the best equipment available only to the most wily criminals.

In other words, a gov't can not achieve the results they seek by implementing "less guns".

 

[Doer]

Less guns does = less shooting. Bans simply don't work. Bans drive up the price of guns, enticing dealers and making the best equipment available only to the most wily criminals.

In other words, a gov't can not achieve the results they seek by implementing "less guns".

Ah, I see.. Like saying less hair, more bald....like that, right? Sorta meaningless?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Less guns does = less shooting. Bans simply don't work. Bans drive up the price of guns, enticing dealers and making the best equipment available only to the most wily criminals.

In other words, a gov't can not achieve the results they seek by implementing "less guns".

your flaw is less shootings doestn correct human behavior it only makes people find other ways to torture each other

the stats although objective do suggest that

 

[cannabineer]

Shooting is what guns do.

But "shooting" and "shootings" are distinct.

The notion that more guns could ever, under any circumstances lead to less use of guns is absurd. [/QUOTE]

However the notion that more guns could lead to less shootings is not. i laid out a scenario in which that has happened and is likely to happen some more, if legislators allow.

 

[abandonconflict]

Ah, I see.. Like saying less hair, more bald....like that, right? Sorta meaningless?

Deciphering...

"I can still ignore the point by misinterpreting it yet again and then calling the argument meaningless."

I'll explain what the argument means.

It means all your pro-gun arguments are as ridiculous as the arguments of your anti-gun detractors. They are based on the irrational fear that gun bans are the first step in an authoritarian regime's power grab.

I assure you, the second amendment will not save you from your stupidity, but by all means, exercise the right. Just please, stop spreading your bullshit "they wanna take our guns" fear mongering.

 

[abandonconflict]

However the notion that more guns could lead to less shootings is not.

No, it is not absurd, but still wrong. Crime is not caused by guns, nor is justice. Guns are just tools. They have only one use. To shoot.

 

[ginwilly]

No, it is not absurd, but still wrong. Crime is not caused by guns, nor is justice. Guns are just tools. They have only one use. To shoot.

hammers are tools, they have only one use, to hammer.

A gun may be used to for protection without shooting ya? possibly used by a potential female victim to ward off an attacker?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Deciphering...

"I can still ignore the point by misinterpreting it yet again and then calling the argument meaningless."

I'll explain what the argument means.

It means all your pro-gun arguments are as ridiculous as the arguments of your anti-gun detractors. They are based on the irrational fear that gun bans are the first step in an authoritarian regime's power grab.

I assure you, the second amendment will not save you from your stupidity, but by all means, exercise the right. Just please, stop spreading your bullshit "they wanna take our guns" fear mongering.

but you see their are other reasons to feel their is not much gained by gun control as the countries that have done it only saw direct correlations as one crime stat went down the others went up....

the real solution is make life better for people, we can never stamp out crime or greed or delusion but we can give people the real tools in life to try to make theirs better and not ever have to resort to any criminal activities

a murderer wasn't born a killer he was assisted and driven to it by his choices given to him by society

 

[Dr Kynes]

That doesn't stop you from pretending to know and ascribing views to me.

of course not.

i have argued with you too often to believe your "i dont have a position im just asking questions" bullshit.

though you do pull it off better then Burgertime.

your own statements lead one to believe you support some kind of bizarre inverse need based regional gun control scheme, where people living in Brentwood and Pacific Pallisades can get guns , since they will likely never need them, but people in Watts and Inglewood can eat a dick, cuz they are dangerous ghetto dwellers who should be prohibited from owning arms due to their demographic and regional risk of shooting somebody.

is this chracterization unfair? have you spelled out what you actually believe in some comment i missed?

or have you continued your usual theme of oblique references and contradictory statements crafted to prevent anyone form identifying your actual stance, thus securing yourself from having to defend that position.


anybody who wants to know knows wheree i stand on any subject. especially guns.

I LOVE GUNS! I think every responsible adult should have a bunch!
as well as responsible CHILDREN! I got my first gun when i was 12 (thanks grampa!) and i havent accidentally shot anyone or any thing.

who should be prohibited from owning guns?

persons who have been determined individually to be irresepsoni9ble, incompetent or criminal. which would be:


Crazy People, convicted ACTUAL felons, (but those felons should have a legitimate pathway back to society) and of course, anyone who has EVER used a gun in crime should be forever barred from owning one.

What kind of guns?

ALL KINDS! machine guns, shotguns, shotgun machine guns, artillery pieces, muskets, revolvers, high capacity handguns, assault rifles, high capacity assault rifles, lever guns, bolt action rifles, elephant guns, squirrel guns and that bamboo tube full of powder and a diamond that Kirk used to kill the Gorn....

see how easy it is to state your position?

now i have to defend it though... so sad.

but then i actually believe my position is best, so come at me bros!

 

[abandonconflict]

i have argued with you too often to believe your "i dont have a position im just asking questions" bullshit.

I have a position, it just doesn't conform to the false dichotomy you live by. My position is not relevant to your bullshit, which is why you try so hard to make all my arguments about my position.

Bullshit is your forte.

 

[abandonconflict]

hammers are tools, they have only one use, to hammer.

Unless they are the sort that can also pull nails.

Maybe you need a gun that can also be used as a dildo.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I have a position, it just doesn't conform to the false dichotomy you live by. My position is not relevant to your bullshit, which is why you try so hard to make all my arguments about my position.

Bullshit is your forte.

ORLY?

my position is clear. i dont hide it. i spell it out in detail, so that theres no semantic barricades to hide behind.

your position on this, or any other subject?

perplexing contradictory statements and a 90 miles of snark infested water between the observer and understanding.

 

[abandonconflict]

ORLY?

Yes, rly.

When you lack retorts to my arguments, you shift focus to my position.

Kind of like how we were talking about shootings, and you've shifted it to a conversation about how much you love me and want to hold onto my belt loop so I can guide you through life.

 

[cannabineer]

Unless they are the sort that can also pull nails.

Maybe you need a gun that can also be used as a dildo.

I like to keep my sex and violence separate ...

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes, rly.

When you lack retorts to my arguments, you shift focus to my position.

Kind of like how we were talking about shootings, and you've shifted it to a conversation about how much you love me and want to hold onto my belt loop so I can guide you through life.

no, YOU shifted the discussion to your nebulous position yourself, by asserting your position was somehow correct, despite it mysterious location and unknown appearance.

you threw out a ridiculous syllogism which was specious at best, declared you have a position, then hid it behind a mountain of "Nuh uhh! I Know You Are But What Am I" posts, and then double dawg dared anybody to knock that invisible chip off your intangible shoulder.

so we are right back to the start:

declare your position, and defend it, as i am prepared to do, or admit you have no position and are simply slinging feces like an agitated monkey.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

whoever repped me saying we should ban people . .we already do . . . .

 

[abandonconflict]

declare your position, and defend it

Samwell Seedwell declared it in the second paragraph of post 251.

He may have thought he was correcting me, but he was in fact arguing precisely my position, in his own words.