Originally posted by Nephthys
Nikolas Cruz was reportedly on an NRA-funded rifle team in high school.Whoops.
And the guy that shot the senator was a Bernie supporter
The last Vegas shooter was a Democrat
Whoops
See what I did there?
Originally posted by lazybones
You then followed that up with...And that's incorrect because the 90s laws were ultimately just additions to the widespread prohibition and gun import bans of the 50s and 60s, which were already ultra-strict by international standards. You can't say that strict gun control in Japan only started in the 90s when full-on prohibition had been in force for decades. That's my bone of contention here. You also preceded that with:
Clearly, you were trying to say that homicide was already low/falling pre-gun control by citing the statistics in previous decades, whilst ignoring or not knowing that gun control was already operating on a much higher frequency than anything we currently see in the US previously and was having positive effects as per the study you linked. Again, no deception on my part. Your claims were just wrong by any reasonable definition of the word 'strict'.
Well, I had no idea that your definition of '(ultra)-strict' was so absurdly limited that it didn't include the widespread and draconian prohibition of guns for civilians and total ban of unauthorized imports. After all, you are defending the current laws of the United States and the 2nd Amendment which even those 50s laws would utterly shit all over. If there's been confusion here, you are to blame for it for having such a narrow definition (which is pretty clearly just a goal post move so you don't need to admit that you were wrong about strict gun control only coming about in the 90s when it clearly existed decades before).
Of course it does. The widespread prohibition even applying to those with licenses is absolutely draconian and 'strict' by any reasonable standard. And that happened all the way back in 1958, and had positive effects as per the study you cited.
Yes, a few years after. But here's the thing, making such a drastic move in regards to a widely imported weapon isn't going to work in such a small timeframe. But over the course of several decades, we can clearly see the homicide rates going on the decrease.
And as I said, you cannot link the recent uptick in homicides with the '93 gun laws in any way, because the recent gun laws have actually lead to a sharp decrease in those being shot dead by guns. Thus, other factors must be outweighing those positive advances. The solution is to keep those successful (as per a study you actually linked) gun control laws, but investigate and combat those other factors. Duh.
We've already covered your dishonest "but but but 1958" tactic. And we already covered your precious 1958 date to show homicides were already decreasing but showed an uptick a few years after your precious year. You even concede the point. The ultra strict gun control laws did not go into place until 1993. It wasn't 1950. It wasn't 1958. It was 1993. Gloss over the fact that a new focus was put on gun control (and it focused more on individuals than organized crime) and it become much more strict? But go ahead and inject your red herring. Who cares? 🙂
Argue against the points instead of ignoring them and trying to use false information.
Q: Did homicides go down after strict gun control laws went into place in Japan? No. And despite the downwards trend, they went up for a few years after strict gun control laws went into place. This happened in 1958 and 1993.
Q: Did the gun control laws in Japan affect homicide trends? No, not at all. There is no correlation and even a slight negative correlation which should be concerning.
Australia's gun control laws also saw something similar. Homicides were already declining and the strict gun control laws had little to no correlation with that downward trend. It stagnated and recently got more violent in Australia, IIRC. I am for sure jealous of Australia's and Japan's homicide rates. I would love it if the US had the same.
Originally posted by Silent Master
How many people here actually own guns?
Not me. It's been years since I've fired a gun. But I used to target shoot with many different kinds of guns. Probably fired tens of thousands of rounds with dozens of different guns.
My brothers own 6-12 guns, each, however. But they live on a large property (4-5 acres) and can target shoot whenever they want.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Fair enough, the most I ever owned was a bow and arrow until a few years ago. never saw the need.
I've hunted with a bow and arrow. Feels more fair.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
@lazybones, I wouldn't bother debating dungdrops any longer. the fact is he is a very crusty, very insecure old man who cannot handle being proven wrong. he usually resorts to projecting onto his opponents that they are terrible and dishonest round about the point he has nothing left to say. I think a part of him actually believes people will buy it.my advice, just leave the babyman to his tricks. 🙁
@dadoodoo, you are pathetic, and off your painkillers - honestly get a grip. haermm
Oh? Feel free to destroy my points. So did Japan's homicides go up, down, or stay the same, specifically due to their strict gun control laws? Or is there no positive correlation between their gun control laws and homicides?
It's easier for your to insult me and pretend I did not point out a very uncomfortable truth for the lefties, isn't it? if you have to examine your anti-gun narrative and talking points...it makes you think that you may be wrong about other things, too, doesn't it?
But, yes, a clean-cut, corporate, Mormon clearly stopped taking pain meds and is "crazy". Easier to just to pretend that's the case, right? 😉
Originally posted by Nephthys
That a little different than the NRA funding programs to teach high schoolers how to shoot rifles. And in this case the guy actually used that training in a school shooting.
That's right, the EEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIL NRA and the EEEEEEVVVVIIIIIIILLLLL AR-15
Originally posted by dadudemonWell, your point is disingenuous. How can you determine the effectiveness of the law by only looking at the few years afterwards? Surely you have to look at the decades after 1958, which saw a ~66% drop in homicide in the years between 1960-1990 (2.81-->0.98 per capita). That's absolutely significant, unlike the small uptick that you are focusing on post-1990s and immediately post 1958.
We've already covered your dishonest "but but but 1958" tactic. And we already covered your precious 1958 date to show homicides were already decreasing but showed an uptick a few years after your precious year. You even concede the point.
The ultra strict gun control laws did not go into place until 1993. It wasn't 1950. It wasn't 1958. It was 1993. Gloss over the fact that a new focus was put on gun control (and it focused more on individuals than organized crime) and it become much more strict?Just because it became more strict and focused in 1990s doesn't mean that's when strict gun control started. I notice that you are glossing over the fact that the 1990s laws were ultimately additions and amendments to the already sizable and draconian measures already established in 1958 and the following decades. That is, general prohibition and wholesale ban of unauthorized imports. If there is a date when Japanese gun control started, it would be 1958, because all further measures since then have been built on the legislation established during that time.
Argue against the points instead of ignoring them and trying to use false information.Again, looking at the few years after 1958 is misleading because such wide-reaching legislation isn't going to go into full effect for some years afterwards. Once you look at the bigger picture, you can clearly see a significant and massive drop in homicide after 1958 (66% between 1960-1990). In terms of the rising homicide after the 1990s (which frankly is small enough to be a statistical anomaly rather than an emerging trend), we know that the gun laws have a downward pressure on homicides because far less people are actually being shot dead by guns. Therefore, other factors must be considered, investigated and combated, as they must be outweighing that positive trend.Q: Did homicides go down after strict gun control laws went into place in Japan? No. And despite the downwards trend, they went up for a few years after strict gun control laws went into place. This happened in 1958 and 1993.
Q: Did the gun control laws in Japan affect homicide trends? No, not at all. There is no correlation and even a slight negative correlation which should be concerning.
Originally posted by lazybones
Well, your point is disingenuous. How can you determine the effectiveness of the law by only looking at the few years afterwards? Surely you have to look at the decades after 1958, which saw a ~66% drop in homicide in the years between 1960-1990 (2.81-->0.98 per capita). That's absolutely significant, unlike the small uptick that you are focusing on post-1990s and immediately post 1958.Just because it became more strict and focused in 1990s doesn't mean that's when strict gun control started. I notice that you are glossing over the fact that the 1990s laws were ultimately additions and amendments to the already sizable and draconian measures already established in 1958 and the following decades. That is, general prohibition and wholesale ban of unauthorized imports. If there is a date when Japanese gun control started, it would be 1958, because all further measures since then have been built on the legislation established during that time.
Again, looking at the few years after 1958 is misleading because such wide-reaching legislation isn't going to go into full effect for some years afterwards. Once you look at the bigger picture, you can clearly see a significant and massive drop in homicide after 1958 (66% between 1960-1990). In terms of the rising homicide after the 1990s (which frankly is small enough to be a statistical anomaly rather than an emerging trend), we know that the gun laws have a downward pressure on homicides because far less people are actually being shot dead by guns. Therefore, other factors must be considered, investigated and combated, as they must be outweighing that positive trend.
That's a lot of words just to refuse to admit you were wrong. You ignored my actual points, again, in your above post.
Why are you ignoring them? Here they are, again:
Q: Did homicides go down after strict gun control laws went into place in Japan?
A: No. And despite the downwards trend, they went up for a few years after strict gun control laws went into place. This happened in 1958 and 1993.
Q: Did the gun control laws in Japan affect homicide trends?
A: No, not at all. There is no correlation and even a slight negative correlation which should be concerning.
Q: Should we use Japan as a great example of how Ultra Strict Gun Control Laws reduce homicides?
A: No. The data does not fit. If we are to use Japan as an example of whether or not ultra strict gun control reduces homicide, we can only conclude it does not.
So why use Japan to make a case for ultra strict gun control laws in the US? It hurts the case to implement ultra strict gun control laws in the US. Same with Australia. It's not a good idea at all. It's a harmful debate tactic.
Go ahead, dance around my points some more. Pretend I am being "disingenuous" with my points. When even faced with overwhelmingly strong data that says you're wrong, how can you honestly sit there and respond to me without thinking you have a problem?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well if we're going to play that game Neph, the dude who stopped the church shooting in Texas was an NRA instructor with an AR-15That's right, the EEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIL NRA and the EEEEEEVVVVIIIIIIILLLLL AR-15
Citation needed. Because from what Robtard posted for me, he didn't stop it and that was a lie.
I may be remembering incorrectly. But...dude...cite that shit with something credible.
Originally posted by Nephthys
That a little different than the NRA funding programs to teach high schoolers how to shoot rifles. And in this case the guy actually used that training in a school shooting.
Sooooo you saying clubs/education on rifle/gun use share some of the blame here?
Should we start blaming cooking clubs for knife attacks or driving schools whenever someone decides to ram a sedan into a crowd of ppl, too?
Originally posted by dadudemonReal A: Yes, homicides saw a massive and clearly significant 66% decrease between 1960 and 1990, which was when the foundation stones for Japan's ultra-strict gun laws were being put into place via general prohibition and bans on unauthorized imports. In the decades after 1990, there has been a very slight uptick in homicides, but this cannot possibly be pinned down to the gun laws due to a sharp decrease in those actually being shot dead, which would have a downward pressure on homicide. That means other factors are at fault, which should obviously be investigated.
That's a lot of words just to refuse to admit you were wrong. You ignored my actual points, again, in your above post.Why are you ignoring them? Here they are, again:
Q: Did homicides go down after strict gun control laws went into place in Japan?
A: No. And despite the downwards trend, they went up for a few years after strict gun control laws went into place. This happened in 1958 and 1993.
Q: Did the gun control laws in Japan affect homicide trends?Real A: Yes, but it is obviously not the only factor. The significant 66% drop between 1960 and 1990 cannot be ignored, and the Pacific Rim Law study that you cited pinned Japan's low crime rates in part due to those gun laws. Again, there are many other factors to be considered, but regulating guns has been a success story in Japan.
A: No, not at all. There is no correlation and even a slight negative correlation which should be concerning.
Q: Should we use Japan as a great example of how Ultra Strict Gun Control Laws reduce homicides?Real A: Probably no due to the cultural differences between the US and Japan that would likely make such draconian laws untenable. But there is no harm in trying to reduce the circulation of extremely effective killing weapons, and the 66% drop in homicides in the decades after the 1958 gun control laws is clearly a superb outcome for Japan.
A: No. The data does not fit. If we are to use Japan as an example of whether or not ultra strict gun control reduces homicide, we can only conclude it does not.So why use Japan to make a case for ultra strict gun control laws in the US?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well if we're going to play that game Neph, the dude who stopped the church shooting in Texas was an NRA instructor with an AR-15That's right, the EEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIIIIL NRA and the EEEEEEVVVVIIIIIIILLLLL AR-15
Even if that were true, using a gun to stop a shooting incident doesn't make guns suddenly good. A bunch of people still got shot that wouldn't have if there were no guns at all.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sooooo you saying clubs/education on rifle/gun use share some of the blame here?Should we start blaming cooking clubs for knife attacks or driving schools whenever someone decides to ram a sedan into a crowd of ppl, too?
Teaching children how to use lethal weapons is a pretty bad idea yeah.
If it was a combat course teaching knife fighting to teens then yes, probably. Unlike with cooking and driving, a gun is only used to harm. And yet driving has a far higher bar of competency and regulation than buying a machine gun does.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Even if that were true, using a gun to stop a shooting incident doesn't make guns suddenly good. A bunch of people still got shot that wouldn't have if there were no guns at all.
Not that I have any agreement with that goal whatsoever. People have a right to guns for self-defense and hunting and shit.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If you want all guns in the US to be gone you will never ever succeed. Even if you repealed the second amendment and made all guns illegal you would never succeed.Not that I have any agreement with that goal whatsoever. People have a right to guns for self-defense and hunting and shit.
That doesn't make your point anymore valid.
Your rights can be amended. People don't need to defend themselves from bears or the french anymore, they need to defend themselves from other Americans with guns. The constitution was intended to be updated to match the realities of the changing world and so it should be.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Teaching children how to use lethal weapons is a pretty bad idea yeah.If it was a combat course teaching knife fighting to teens then yes, probably. Unlike with cooking and driving, a gun is only used to harm. And yet driving has a far higher bar of competency and regulation than buying a machine gun does.
No. Encouraging kids to use guns is a bad idea (and we already do that with all the movies, TV shows, toys, video games, comic books that almost romanticize gun violence <—- blame those first). Teaching them the proper use of guns is not.
Might as well have all Martial arts schools closed down with that kind of thinking.
And we’re talkig about an ROTC rifle club. That uses air guns for school competitions. That once got a charitable donation from the NRA.
There are shitty things you can blame the NRA for. This is seriously not one of them. It was clickbait article to rile ppl who have an already deep seeded confirmation bias. You just kinda fell for it.
Seriously, if you cannot see the stretch here, I don’t know how to help you.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Nikolas Cruz was reportedly on an NRA-funded rifle team in high school.Whoops.
This didn't play out the way you though, want a redo?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Your rights can be amended. People don't need to defend themselves from bears or the french anymore, they need to defend themselves from other Americans with guns. The constitution was intended to be updated to match the realities of the changing world and so it should be.
Originally posted by dadudemonThat's a lot of posting and words on your part where you don't admit you tried to be dishonest with your arguments and your post is very clearly lacking anything that admits you were wrong. Everything else you said that contradicts me is wrong. Literally, my response to everything else would be "No, what I said. You're wrong." You did not provide a rebuttal. You just simply responded with "nuh-uh"s. You're not even being slightly honest. Now take your meds.
Oh? Feel free to destroy my points. So did Japan's homicides go up, down, or stay the same, specifically due to their strict gun control laws? Or is there no positive correlation between their gun control laws and homicides?It's easier for your to insult me and pretend I did not point out a very uncomfortable truth for the lefties, isn't it? if you have to examine your anti-gun narrative and talking points...it makes you think that you may be wrong about other things, too, doesn't it?
But, yes, a clean-cut, corporate, Mormon clearly stopped taking pain meds and is "crazy". Easier to just to pretend that's the case, right? 😉