What's the correlation between gunlaws and homicides by cities?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Which again
A. gives you more time to reconsiderB. gives more time for outside intervention
You know how it's easier to resist eating unhealthy food when it isn't in your fridge than when it is in your fridge?
The same thing applies here.
Also, accidental gun death is a thing.
More gun control-> less gun death
Either that's suicide or homicide based.
We have reason to think it could work, so we should try it.
Bro, I could walk 500 feet to the chem stock-room right now and guzzle the bottle of potassium cyanide. Or I can suicide by cop. Or jump off a bridge.
The idea of a gun being faster doesn't make sense. Unless you're super impulsive and carry it on you, you have to get it, load it, then boom. It takes just as long as any of these other methods.
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, gun shows all you really need is a smile and money and a assault rifle can be yours on the spot.
That was probably close to true in the 1980s but more current research shows that it is very hard (I will never be dumb enough to say "impossible" because we all know that isn't true).
Th "Gun Show Loophole" is more of a myth than reality and even the researcher that researched this said his data is out of date (it was from the 1980s):
I know some others will object to this source because it was proven to be biased against conservatives in the 2016 elections, but they are very fair in their presentation in this article, imo:
Also, from a more conservatie perspective, here is another article about the Gunshow Loophole:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/
They are fair in that article, too. They scoff at the "take away your guns" fearmongering that the conservatards do every time a democrat says something related to guns.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Which again
A. gives you more time to reconsiderB. gives more time for outside intervention
You know how it's easier to resist eating unhealthy food when it isn't in your fridge than when it is in your fridge?
The same thing applies here.
Also, accidental gun death is a thing.
More gun control-> less gun death
Either that's suicide or homicide based.
We have reason to think it could work, so we should try it.
You....don't cite anything hardly ever if at all. Could you at least try?
Here, I'll cite a know liberal source that says you're wrong:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide
Originally posted by Psychology Today
There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Which again
A. gives you more time to reconsiderB. gives more time for outside intervention
You know how it's easier to resist eating unhealthy food when it isn't in your fridge than when it is in your fridge?
The same thing applies here.
Also, accidental gun death is a thing.
Again, Show. Me. The. Evidence. That. Gun. Control. Reduces. Overall. Suicide. Rates. If. You. Want. To. Make. A. Compelling. Case. For. Restricting. People's. Liberty.
I mean shit, dadudemon just provided some evidence that suggests gun control is ineffectual at preventing suicide.
Also, that's a much weaker case to make for the restriction of people's liberties. If you're arguing that gun availability allows for more people to violate the rights of other people, that's one thing, but if you're arguing that everyone's freedom should be curtailed because some people will self-inflict harm on themselves that's not remotely as compelling from a point of principle.
So at a point of principle this isn't really a strong case your making, and you haven't substantiated it with any evidence.
Same with accidental gun deaths, which comprise 1.5% of all gun deaths, and you haven't provided statistical evidence as to how much this is mitigated by gun control. People die in a lot of ways accidentally, such as with alcohol or drowning, doesn't mean I think people's freedom in regards to those things should be rescinded because some people are victims of their own irresponsibility. I mean shit you're much more likely to die accidentally from drowning than you are from a gun. Again you're not providing enough evidence of the extent of the impact to your policies to suggest it's worth curtailing people's freedoms.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
More gun control-> less gun deathEither that's suicide or homicide based.
We have reason to think it could work, so we should try it.
Also "it might work so let's try it" is not a strong case for something that will (not "might"😉rescinding people's liberty. Particularly when there's the flip side of "it might lead to some people dying since an option for self-defense was made less available."
You're coming at this from the angle of "if there's a chance this could work even if I don't have evidence, or if it reduces gun death even slightly, then it's worth rescinding the liberty of every citizen in the country"... and you're baffled as to why people disagree with you on this.
I'll tell you why people disagree with you on this. The government exists to protect life, liberty, and property. These are called natural rights, and it's in our constitution, they are self-evidently valid. It is not up to anybody to justify why they should have life, liberty or property, it is up to the person suggesting any of these things should be restricted to argue why. There needs to be evidence provided in order to justify such a thing, not someone saying "Well, maaaaaybe this could work" without the evidence to substantiate it.
Originally posted by EmperordmbYou have a natural right to own a gun, not a natural right to have an easy time owning one.
[I'll tell you why people disagree with you on this. The government exists to protect life, liberty, and property. These are called natural rights,
And it's not unsubstantiated. States with more gun control have less gun death, hence it makes sense that if we had mor egun control, we'd have less gun death
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You have a natural right to own a gun, not a natural right to have an easy time owning one.
Spot on. It should not be easy. You should prove you're mentally fit and have a reasonbile background that is good enough to own a gun.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And it's not unsubstantiated. States with more gun control have less gun death, hence it makes sense that if we had mor egun control, we'd have less gun death
Again, that's another myth. Here's an article where the actual data is reviewed, in depth, and the correlation shows that, ACTUALLY, the homicide rate is slightly higher in the more restrictive gun law states than the more relaxed ones. And this is the Wa-Po...clearly a source that would be much more liberal than say...FoxNews:
The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would be small enough to be essentially zero, given all the other possible sources of variation.) If we use the National Journal data (adding the columns for each state, counting 1 for each dark blue, which refers to broad restrictions, 0.5 for each light blue, which refers to medium restrictions, and 0 for each grey, which refers to no or light restrictions), the results are similar: +0.017 or +0.051 if one omits the fatal gun accident rates.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You have a natural right to own a gun, not a natural right to have an easy time owning one.
If the government passes any legislation restricting what you are and aren't allowed to do, it is rescinding your right to liberty. Which can be justified in certain cases (ie. laws that say you can't infringe on other people's rights, or drunk driving laws, or laws regarding driving on roads), but the important thing is that it needs to be justified with a valid reason, not a baseless claim without statistical evidence to support it.
You can't just restrict people's liberty without valid justification, you need a valid justification. And thus far you have failed to provide evidence that justifies your stance.
Your notion that restricting people's freedom shouldn't even be weighed as a concern is fundamentally at odds with the ideology our country was founded upon, and your refusal to even consider this as a factor makes it very difficult for anyone to have a proper discussion with you on the matter.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And it's not unsubstantiated. States with more gun control have less gun death, hence it makes sense that if we had mor egun control, we'd have less gun death
And you also haven't substantiated the notion that gun control reduces suicide, in fact once again evidence to the contrary has been provided here.
The benefits you're suggesting we should sacrifice liberty and availability of self-defense for just haven't been substantiated as anything... well... substantive, and thus your argument is like a newborn baby, confused and toothless.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Gunshow Myth Exposed!!Watch this video:
In summary:
private sellers don't have to meet the same requirements that federally licensed ones do
Now there's a legitimate semantic gripe here, as it doesn't exclusively apply to gunshows, howwver the point stands.
There is most definitely a loophole here. The dude in the video doesn't seem to understand what the loophole is.
It applies to sales that don't require a federal license.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's possible it would have more if you use Glasgow, Jamaica, and other places as examples of increasing homicides after gun bans.It's also possible that it is far too complicated to ask simple questions like yours. Likely, some areas would see homicide spikes, some would see decreases, and some would see shifts in where homicides and violence occur.
Glasgow has something most places don't. The Old Firm.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That was probably close to true in the 1980s but more current research shows that it is very hard (I will never be dumb enough to say "impossible" because we all know that isn't true).Th "Gun Show Loophole" is more of a myth than reality and even the researcher that researched this said his data is out of date (it was from the 1980s):
I know some others will object to this source because it was proven to be biased against conservatives in the 2016 elections, but they are very fair in their presentation in this article, imo:
Also, from a more conservatie perspective, here is another article about the Gunshow Loophole:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/
They are fair in that article, too. They scoff at the "take away your guns" fearmongering that the conservatards do every time a democrat says something related to guns.
I'll read it all later, but just skimming it doesn't seem to outright "bust" the issue, just that some things are not as bad as they appear, but some things are still an issue, like people can still avoid a background check and legally get a gun in some instances.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
It is unsubstantiated, the evidence hasn't been provided that gun control reduces gun homicides, in fact evidence that counters that claim has been provided by two different people here.
And you also haven't substantiated the notion that gun control reduces suicide, in fact once again evidence to the contrary has been provided here.
States with more gun control have less gun related death, hence it's logical that gun control would lower gun related deaths. Whether there's a specific aspect of gun related deaths which remains unaffected doesn't change the overall picture.
My claims aren't unsubstantiated, you're just deflecting away from the substantiation by cherrypicking.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, that's another myth. Here's an article where the actual data is reviewed, in depth, and the correlation shows that, ACTUALLY, the homicide rate is slightly higher in the more restrictive gun law states than the more relaxed ones. And this is the Wa-Po...clearly a source that would be much more liberal than say...FoxNews:
And the article seems to be missing that a gun has way more destructive potential than a knife does. If I want to kill someone with a gun, that's way easier than killing someone with a knife and it's much harder to kill more than one person.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So what? Why does it have to specifically lower homicides? Why isn't lower gun deaths overall a sufficient justification?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I don't need to substantiate that, because overall gun deaths are lower.States with more gun control have less gun related death, hence it's logical that gun control would lower gun related deaths. Whether there's a specific aspect of gun related deaths which remains unaffected doesn't change the overall picture.
This isn't reducing the rates of people killing each other with guns, and it isn't reducing the suicide rate. Ergo this policy from the data that has been provided, if you actually look into the details of the statistic, is not saving lives. It's untouching gun homicide, and just transferring the method of suicide to other means without actually tangibly effecting the suicide rate.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
My claims aren't unsubstantiated, you're just deflecting away from the substantiation by cherrypicking.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And the article seems to be missing that a gun has way more destructive potential than a knife does. If I want to kill someone with a gun, that's way easier than killing someone with a knife and it's much harder to kill more than one person.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That isn't specific to gun related homicide.
Yes, that's the exact point I was making.
Restricting guns doesn't stop the homcides.
If you want to make the argument that gun related deaths drop but that you don't care about the shift in homicides from guns to knives and other objects, great. That's a very shitty thing to think and a very dumb opinion to have...but I'm most certainly not disputing gun deaths: it's homicides.
Originally posted by EmperordmbYes it does, because if you look into the details of the statistics, reducing gun related death doesn't mean these policies are actually saving lives. Because if you look at the gun homicide rates, those are basically unchanged, so these policies aren't reducing people killing each other with guns. If you look at the gun suicide rates, they go down with gun control, but the overall suicide rate does not, which means you aren't actually saving people from committing suicide, they're just killing themselves via other means.