Originally posted by Blindside12I thought liberals like Neph were open minded and took into consideration the living standards of everyone?
Just you wait, he'll have one of two things. A dumb answer to that question or he will leave the forum the rest of the day.
What about people living in the Alaskan bush? What happens to them (regardless of them being white-trash).
Originally posted by dadudemonWell again, Japan's gun laws have resulted in a massive decrease in those shot dead by guns since the 90s. Presumably, other factors must be outweighing those advances due to the slight uptick in homicides, but that is simply reason to diversify the approach beyond guns. Such a position is not mutually exclusive with acknowledging Japan's successes.
[B]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.
"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)Indeed, the US homicide rate has fallen notably as well, but it appears to have fluctuated a lot throughout the 20th century and is still extraordinarily high internationally. Japan, on the other hand, has seen a consistent decline in homicide since 1960, and one massive difference between Japan and US is those gun laws. Of course, it is difficult to draw an exact connection there as there are many factors, but the Pacific Rim Law study seems to view it as one factor in Japan's successes regarding crimes and homicides. And logically, reducing the circulation of brutally effective killing weapons would help ameliorate murder. I would also point out that although Japan's homicide was falling before 1958, it still was nothing compared to the 66% consistent decline seen between 1960 and 1990. In essence, the pass of the gun control laws coincided with an accelerated drop in excess of what was happening previously. The biggest policy enacted in that period were the draconian gun legislation, and I would be surprised if they did not have some causative effect with the accelerated and consistent decline.
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.Japan saw a far more consistent and profound drop in homicides in the decades after it passed its gun laws in 1958 than the US did. Again, I don't deny that there are several factors at play here, particularly cultural ones, but Japan's extraordinarily low rates are a clear success story borne out of the consistent decline in the 1960-1990 period which saw great restrictions placed on guns.
Originally posted by Kurk
I thought liberals like Neph were open minded and took into consideration the living standards of everyone?What about people living in the Alaskan bush? What happens to them (regardless of them being white-trash).
Many Alaskans that live out there are native Americans as well.
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.
No, he did save people. Not initially from the shooting. But the shooter was going back to look over people who were shot to make sure they were dead. The guy showed up and...well, here, let me let one of the people he saved tell it:
Inside the Texas church, she thought it was her turn to die. Then outside, a man appeared.
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?
I can't believe he is arguing that the NRA supporting groups that teach people to be responsible with firearms somehow makes them evil. that is just sad.
Originally posted by lazybones
Well again, Japan's gun laws have resulted in a massive decrease in those shot dead by guns since the 90s.
As you know, I don't care about the red herring that libtards use, in the US, regarding gun control known as "gun homicides." I care about homicides because gun control cases over the years have shown us that the violence switches to other implements. What I like to see is overall homicide going down as a direct result of gun control measures.
And this is what should be the most important.
In the cases of Australia and Japan, homicides did not drop due to strict gun control laws and measures. They should, therefore, be thrown out as examples of "gun control that works." It didn't work.
Originally posted by lazybones
Japan saw a far more consistent and profound drop in homicides in the decades after it passed its gun laws in 1958...
Dude...no it didn't.
The drop was already happening.
Running the numbers by year, there is no correlation to homicide rates and gun control measures. There is no statistical significant in favor of the gun control measures.
Originally posted by Robtard
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 Surtur
No, he did save people. Not initially from the shooting. But the shooter was going back to look over people who were shot to make sure they were dead. The guy showed up and...well, here, let me let one of the people he saved tell it:Inside the Texas church, she thought it was her turn to die. Then outside, a man appeared.
Here is the telling of the events by Willeford:
Willeford, a certified shooting instructor, grabbed his own rifle and raced out of his house barefoot....
“He saw me, and I saw him,” Willeford told the station.
It was Willeford’s presence that distracted Kelley.
Willeford hit Kelley at least once, authorities said. Kelley then dropped his rifle, jumped in his Ford Expedition SUV and fled.
In Willeford's tale, it does not seem he wrestled the gun free. Seems he brought his own.
Is this argument shut? Is it done?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh yeah and if the more physically able dude breaking into her house catches her running outside with a phone she's getting beat the shit out of her or maybe raped.
Shouldn't firearms be legally stored in a gun vault?
Because your scenario kinda suggests the middle aged woman keeps a loaded gun on her bedside table or sleeps with one under her pillow...
The possibilities of her grand kids finding the loaded firearm & shooting themselves or their siblings is a more tangible fact than a dude breaking into her house.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Shouldn't firearms be legally stored in a gun vault?Because your scenario kinda suggests the middle aged woman keeps a loaded gun on her bedside table or sleeps with one under her pillow...
The possibilities of her grand kids finding the loaded firearm & shooting themselves or their siblings is a more tangible fact than a dude breaking into her house.
I suppose if someone is that concerned about keeping a gun by their bed you can easily get a gunvault with a keypad lock system in your nightstand.
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B
In the cases of Australia and Japan, homicides did not drop due to strict gun control laws and measures. They should, therefore, be thrown out as examples of "gun control that works." It didn't work. [/B]
Errr we haven't had a mass shooting in over 22 years.
It's only 3 months into 2018 & your 18th school shooting so far, this year alone kinda doesn't back your argument.
Does it?
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Shouldn't firearms be legally stored in a gun vault?Because your scenario kinda suggests the middle aged woman keeps a loaded gun on her bedside table or sleeps with one under her pillow...
The possibilities of her grand kids finding the loaded firearm & shooting themselves or their siblings is a more tangible fact than a dude breaking into her house.
I'm fairly sure that the number of instances where people break into someone's house far outnumber the times a kid shot themselves or a sibling with their parents gun.
But, if you have a peer reviewed study that says otherwise. I'd be more than happy to see it.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I suppose if someone is that concerned about keeping a gun by their bed you can easily get a gunvault with a keypad lock system in your nightstand.
Absolutely.
But once again, that scenario only applies if the person is in the same room as the gun vault when they realise their house is being broken into.
What about having a home alarm security system installed in the first place?
Bars on the windows?
A metal security gate?
Another upside is that your insurance premiums go down, the more your secure your house.
Everyone who constantly argues, "It's my God dam given right to protect my family & home" kinda gives you the impression they walk around the house with gun holstered & a loaded shotgun leaning against the front door.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
18th school shooting lol. What a ridiculous statistic. Someone shooting himself on a piece of land that used to be a school counted as a school shooting and people are still throwing that statistic around. Absurd.
17 killed ranging in ages from 14 to 49.
Yup what a ridiculous statistic.
