Originally posted by lazybones
Real 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.
Wrong:
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.
The gun laws had no effect on the overall homicide trend. It had no correlation or even a negative correlation.
Originally posted by lazybones
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.
"Not the only factor" yet the US dropped homicide rates, since 1980, by almost 100% (half) so we showed more success over a shorter period of time.
Your job is to prove the gun control laws improved Japan's homicide rate (an improvement is a decrease) through a moderate to strong positive correlation. No such data exists and the correlation is not there. The rate was already significantly dropping before either 1958 (a red herring date introduced by you) or 1993 (the key factor, here).
Originally posted by lazybones
[BReal 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. [/B]
So you acknowledge the facts on one of the core issues. Great. But then you pretend that a drop in homicides, which has no positive correlation with the strict gun control laws, is significant. That's bad.
This is the most important take away:
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Teaching children how to use lethal weapons is a pretty bad idea yeah.
What are your thoughts on bows then...
You do know depending on where you live (in the USA) kids and parents hunt together frequently.
And yet driving has a far higher bar of competency and regulation than buying a machine gun does.
Please tell me all about what you know about buying machine guns in the USA and its regulation.
Originally posted by NephthysLol that's called being a cuck 100% max. I refuse to ever live in a state where castle-doctrine isn't implemented. What's the point of buying a house if you have no control over it?
She shouldn't try to defend herself even if she has a gun. Run outside and call the police.
Anyway what if this person lives out in the country where it takes the police 20 minutes to respond? She's ****ed. This is why gun laws (at least anything other than background checks) should be left to state and local governments as ever-body lives under different circumstances.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
You recall correctly, it seems an unarmed man grabbed the shooter's gun and took it away and then used it against him:
As Kelley was leaving, the police say he was confronted by a local resident who "grabbed his rifle and engaged that suspect." The DailyMail.com report identified that local as Willeford, a 55-year-old motorcycle enthusiast.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sutherland-springs-2-locals-stopped-church-mass-shooter-2017-11
Originally posted by Nephthys
I believe the statistics show that using a gun to prevent a home invasion has an exceedingly small chance of success. Fleeing into a neighbouring house or barracading yourself behind something has a far higher chance of saving yourself.
How does this work for folks that live in the country with neighbors a mile away and 30 minutes from a town?