If indeed you are gay, don’t you find it a little bit ironic that you’re using a religious sign to try and make a point?
Originally posted by jaden101
You don't have a right to use that fallacy. That's cultural appropriation. I'm offended.
I was eating when I scrolled down to your post. Almost spit chunk onto my screen.
To directly address your post...
Since I'm Mormon, you will wear your damn kilt (but allow me to call it a dress), put on some lipstick, and become one of my many wives. And you will like it.
Originally posted by SquallX
You know what I find funny? I just type in Chicago death this Lresident day. And guess what? The first link had “4 killed, 17 wounded”. Just this weekend alone.Now I ask you, where the outrage!? After all, guns were used!
Shhh...don't tell them about that: you may hurt their feelings. They don't like to talk about black people dying and being murdered very much unless it gets them elected.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was eating when I scrolled down to your post. Almost spit chunk onto my screen.To directly address your post...
Since I'm Mormon, you will wear your damn kilt (but allow me to call it a dress), put on some lipstick, and become one of my many wives. And you will like it.
I heard the multiple wives thing was removed. Is that true?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was eating when I scrolled down to your post. Almost spit chunk onto my screen.To directly address your post...
Since I'm Mormon, you will wear your damn kilt (but allow me to call it a dress), put on some lipstick, and become one of my many wives. And you will like it.
You
Originally posted by dadudemonOh please, this is a slimy argument used by gun proponents.
Shhh...don't tell them about that: you may hurt their feelings. They don't like to talk about black people dying and being murdered very much unless it gets them elected.
6 people were killed and 21 wounded in several separate incidents across the city with a bunch of independent perpetrators. It took around 10-15 perpetrators a span of a couple days to cause 6 casualties and 21 wounded, all of whom were independent actors. With a mass shootings, it took 1 perpetrator a span of 10 minutes to cause 17 deaths and 16 wounded.
These type of crimes and mass shootings are caused by entirely different factors and have entirely different solutions.
And fyi, there is no information released yet on the identities of the dead. So you are assuming that they are black for the pleasure of your own righteous indignation, which is a little irking...
Originally posted by SurturKilling a child and aborting a fetus aren't the same thing, these equalization tactics are insanely clever though I must admit
Watch: Pro-abortion, pro-gun control senator has double standard on ‘slaughtered’ babies?[b]"We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered"
Too funny. [/B]
Originally posted by SquallX
I heard the multiple wives thing was removed. Is that true?
Yes, it's an ongoing joke.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Oh please, this is a slimy argument used by gun proponents.6 people were killed and 21 wounded in several separate incidents across the city with a bunch of independent perpetrators. It took around 10-15 perpetrators a span of a couple days to cause 6 casualties and 21 wounded, all of whom were independent actors. With a mass shootings, it took 1 perpetrator a span of 10 minutes to cause 17 deaths and 16 wounded.
These type of crimes and mass shootings are caused by entirely different factors and have entirely different solutions.
And fyi, there is no information released yet on the identities of the dead. So you are assuming that they are black for the pleasure of your own righteous indignation, which is a little irking...
If you were correct about focus and priorities then why are we talking about policies less than 1% of the gun homicides and, instead, why aren't we focusing quite heavily on black homicides?
The fact that any time at all is wasted on "Assault Weapons" tells me that almost no one is an honest actor in this conversation.
Where are the news headlines about the 6-10 killed last week in Chicago? Hmmm?
Oh, it's just black people killing each other. Who cares about them, right? They only comprise about 50% of all the murdered people in the US, each year.
"But what about solving both!"
Removing gun rights doesn't solve either. As I've said, it's a red herring. And it's stupid.
Originally posted by dadudemonIf you were correct about focus and priorities then why are we talking about policies less than 1% of the gun homicides and, instead, why aren't we focusing quite heavily on black homicides?
Best solution....massively increase the number of mass shootings and the casualties involved.
Then can something be tried to stop them?
Originally posted by Firefly218
Yeah, question, how did those 11 people get killed by guns in 2008 if their gun laws are so strict? And were those gun deaths perpetuated by people who legally owned and purchased those guns? Also, did those gun laws demonstrably reduce homicides before being put into place? If not to any of those questions, then the entire argument goes out the window.
So let me try to answer the question that should be asked:
What were gun deaths, per capita, before their strict gun laws were put in place?
Let's frame Japan's homicide rate over time:
In 1960:
2.81
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#1960
1970:
1.9
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#1970
1980:
1.44
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#1980
1990:
0.98
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#1990
In 2014 (the latest I could find from this site):
1.02
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#2014
When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?
Well, some say it started as long ago as the Haitorei Edict in 1870 but that led to Samurai insurrections so we probably don't want to use that as an example of how "arms control" lowered homicides and violence, right? I like to be fair when presenting my arguments so let's skip this as it probably makes a very terrible case.
Looks like it was 1993 that the ultra strict gun control laws went into place (and amended in 1995):
So the next time someone brings up Japan for how righteous and amazing they are for their extremely strict gun control laws, remind them that:
1. Homicides were already absurdly low BEFORE those strict laws were put into place.
2. Homicides have actually increased since their extremely strict enforcement of gun laws went into place.
Originally posted by jaden101
Amazing how mass shootings of white people suddenly get right wingers caring about black people being murdered.
You mean how left-wingers trying to use it it to implement useless laws while still ignoring black people, right?
Edit - Black people only matter in US Politics when it is time to get elected or reelected. And at that, only minimalistically for PR purposes.
Originally posted by jaden101
Best solution....massively increase the number of mass shootings and the casualties involved.Then can something be tried to stop them?
We already have the solutions but idiots want to focus on guns because they are scary and hard to understand.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou just demonstrated that Japan is proactive in preventing gun violence. They didn't need tragedy or a history of shootings to take action, instead they preemptively curb violence.
Yeah, question, how did those 11 people get killed by guns in 2008 if their gun laws are so strict? And were those gun deaths perpetuated by people who legally owned and purchased those guns? Also, did those gun laws demonstrably reduce homicides before being put into place? If not to any of those questions, then the entire argument goes out the window.So let me try to answer the question that should be asked:
[b]What were gun deaths, per capita, before their strict gun laws were put in place?
Let's frame Japan's homicide rate over time:
In 1960:
2.81
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#19601970:
1.9
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#19701980:
1.44
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#19801990:
0.98
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#1990In 2014 (the latest I could find from this site):
1.02
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Japan/Crime/All-stats#2014When did they implement their ultra strict gun laws?
Well, some say it started as long ago as the Haitorei Edict in 1870 but that led to Samurai insurrections so we probably don't want to use that as an example of how "arms control" lowered homicides and violence, right? I like to be fair when presenting my arguments so let's skip this as it probably makes a very terrible case.
Looks like it was 1993 that the ultra strict gun control laws went into place (and amended in 1995):
So the next time someone brings up Japan for how righteous and amazing they are for their extremely strict gun control laws, remind them that:
1. Homicides were already absurdly low BEFORE those strict laws were put into place.
2. Homicides have actually increased since their extremely strict enforcement of gun laws went into place. [/B]
Japan has a population of 127 million people and year after year they are able to keep gun homicides "absurdly" low. They must be doing something right?
Originally posted by Firefly218
You just demonstrated that Japan is proactive in preventing gun violence.
No I sure as hell didn't. haermm
Originally posted by Firefly218
They didn't need tragedy or a history of shootings to take action, instead they preemptively curb violence.
Well...they actually implemented those strict laws in 1993 because of exactly the opposite reason. But I will not condescend to you as it is unnecessary to keep the conversation moving. Uhhh...take a look at the history around their gun laws. I don't know what else to tell you...but it was moral outrage and backlash against some very crappy violent events.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Japan has a population of 127 million people and year after year they are able to keep gun homicides "absurdly" low. They must be doing something right?
You didn't understand the point, at all, and came up to the opposite conclusion.
1990 homicides < 2014 homicides
Gun laws that you posted about: 1993.
Homicides in Japan for many years prior have been about the same.
Conclusion: the strict gun laws had no effect on homicide rates and if we are being fair, there is a statistically significant negative effect on homicide rates since 1993 which could lend itself (if we are to be idiots about it) to the notion that the strict gun laws need to be repealed to get back to the 1990 figures.
The strict gun laws did NOT lower the homicide rate in Japan.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean how left-wingers trying to use it it to implement useless laws while still ignoring black people, right?Edit - Black people only matter in US Politics when it is time to get elected or reelected. And at that, only minimalistically for PR purposes.
We already have the solutions but idiots want to focus on guns because they are scary and hard to understand.
What's the solution then, champ.
Business as usual?
Cyclical arguments?