abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I wasn't naming any books, but if I were, it would not be that one.
Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
I wasn't naming any books, but if I were, it would not be that one.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
have you read it?
it makes a compelling case, far more compelling than the bullshit study you cited, whose methodology has been rejected by everyone except Handgun Control inc.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Well that's just not true.
- [TABLE="class: cms_table_wikitable cms_table_sortable cms_table_jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TD]Hong Kong[/TD]
[TD]0.03 (mixed years)[/TD]
[TD]0.00 (2004)[/TD]
[TD]0.03 (1999)[/TD]
[TD]0.00 (1996)[/TD]
[TD]0.00 (1996)[/TD]
[TD]Guns in Hong Kong[SUP][27][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
because I don't think that guns have much of an effect on crime one way or the other
In areas with a lot of crime, the presence of guns will only make for more shootings, not less crime. In areas with very little crime, the presence or absence of guns will not have any effect on crime rates.
Areas with abundant opportunities for people to make a legitimate living will have far less crime than areas lacking such opportunities.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
So what you are actually saying is more crime = more violence. Why single out the modality then to focus on "more guns = more shootings"? It strikes me as agenda.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Commies don't allow their populace to own firearms.Well that's just not true.
[TR]
[TD]Hong Kong[/TD]
[TD]0.03 (mixed years)[/TD]
[TD]0.00 (2004)[/TD]
[TD]0.03 (1999)[/TD]
[TD]0.00 (1996)[/TD]
[TD]0.00 (1996)[/TD]
[TD]Guns in Hong Kong[SUP][27][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
How could you not know that?
Doer
Well-Known Member
You can make it up for political agenda, but you can not make the facts work without lying about it.
Crime has nothing to do with guns....that's what your position is, today? Cat on a hot tin roof.
So, let me got this lack of logic....not get it..just state it.
The Agenda wants us to believe 3 things that make no sense. And that results in the big lie claim of the agenda. Three lies do not make a fact.
Agenda say, Take away guns and lower the murder rate. (ignore the crime rate)
But, to buy that, people of better intelligence still must swallow these whoppers.
- murder is only by guns
- guns don't stop people from getting murdered
- crime is only about job opproturnity
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No. That is inaccurate and incomplete.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
That is not what I have said, in fact, I have specifically said multiple times that bans do not solve the problem. Try to keep up.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
So... 13 years, because it was under British rule until 2000.....
How could you not know that?
You can just move one country up the list if you want..... hell move 2 or 3.... lol It's still the same story.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That "deciphering" shinola is pretty damned annoying; isn't it?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I have been pretty clear. More guns = more shootings.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
More Knives = More Stabbings.
More Kids = More Child abuse.
More Frying Pans = More Three Stooges Mishaps
More Abandonconflict Posts = More Nonsense.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You left out...
More people = More people dying from natural causes
Ban people/death/disease?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"Clear" and "correct" are two different things. Didn't someone point out that your study used a stand-in ("proxy") measure instead of direct data to infer and not actually determine the outcome you claim? My opinion.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the study cited is as fraught with bullshit as the infamous one, still quoted so often, which concluded: "a gun in the home is six times more likely to kill you or a loved one..."
that "study" wasnt even a study, but a symposium discussion talking point, based on a SURVEY of 3 big city hospitals over 2 6 moth periods, which were non-consecutive over a span of 3 years.
and even the "survey" was full of assumptions like Gun In The Home + Death By Gunfire = Killed By Own Gun. it included gangbangers shot by the cops, cops shhot by gangbangers, drivebys, murders, and pretty much every GSW reported. and if there was a gun in the victim's home or on his person, he was therefore slain by his own heater.
yeah it's retarded, theres no study, it was never published anywhere, it was never "peer reviewed" it was a symposium discussion at an emergency/trauma medical convention.
but it's still assumed to be factual 20 years later.