ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I have been pretty clear. More guns = more shootings.
Wow, you mean if guns were never invented people wouldn't be shot with guns? Got a point here?
I have been pretty clear. More guns = more shootings.
that "study" wasnt even a study, but a symposium discussion talking point,
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.
In areas with a lot of crime, the presence of guns will only make for more shootings, not less crime.
I flatly disagree with your statement that more guns will not reduce crime.
So you are saying that if an area is a high crime region, that more guns is the answer?
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.
So...
...yes?
Conditionally. Only conditionally.
To reduce crime, yes. To reduce shootings? Only in the long run imo.So you are saying that if an area is a high crime region, that more guns is the answer?
your assertions are so patently dopey that the only response is to mock youtThen 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.
More Knives = More Stabbings.
More Kids = More Child abuse.
More Frying Pans = More Three Stooges Mishaps
More Abandonconflict Posts = More Nonsense.
So if someone's car is stolen and the thief runs someone over...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, or negligently used in an accident.
I think the main problem is that American's and 'due diligence' when it comes to firearms, is virtually unheard of.
Wow, you mean if guns were never invented people wouldn't be shot with guns? Got a point here?
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.
i still dont know where you purport to stand on this issue
So if someone's car is stolen and the thief runs someone over...
Its the owners fault?
Then at the very least, your disagreement with one of my previous comments must not have been as flat as you described.
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.
If a semantic gripe about "flatly" is all you have, you concede the core of the argument.