This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BizSuitStacy · M
@HerKing You didn't explain the UK homicide spike. You dismissed it. Called it cherry picking. That means you acknowledge it as truth, but think of it as an outlier. To prove it's not an outlier, I've pointed a number of other examples of failed gun control.
I've debated dozens of gun control advocates. You all can be profiled into one of a few categories. You fit the "changes the subject all the time" profile. You don't know your facts, so you throw out irrelevant talking points.
You keep harping in the "how would you feel if it was your kid...?" What in the Hell do our "feelings" have to do with what we are debating?
You're attempting to appeal to emotion. Then you go and spread the bullshit about 18 school shootings. We all know that the most of the shootings are gang bangers shooting one another near a school, or an incident in which a gun goes off at a school accidently.
I will agree that any mass shooting at a school is awful, but to think gun control will put a stop to it is ludicrous.
It's interesting, because I see we are about the same age. But there were lots of guns around when I was in high school, but there weren't any school shootings. Hell, guys had hunting rifles in the racks of their trucks at school. The fucking guns were there AT THE SCHOOL. No one ever got shot. Not even accidently. So what changed? It wasn't the guns.
Still...you won't stop here. I know your type. Then, you really go off the rails stating the 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the people. Doing the math, that means roughly 9.6 million people own approximately 175 million guns, which mean these folks own about 18 guns each on average. Tough stat to back up since most guns aren't registered. But let's assume it's true. So what? Do you know what people are required by law to do when they buy a gun? They have to pass a background checks. If the buy lots of guns, they pass lots of background checks.
Now, what do we know about guns used in crimes? Well approximately 90% of the people who use gun in a homicide have at least one felony (the average is 4 felonies). How did they get their guns? Oh yeah...illegally, since they can't pass a background check.
93% of the guns used in crimes are acquired illegally. They are working around the background check system.
Now...the background check system is not a crystal ball. There can be cases in which someone has no red flags, buys a gun, and uses it in a crime. But then, we are a society that believes in freedom. You don't take it away because some might abuse it.
But of course you ween't done going off the deep end. Now you bring in Bolton, Russia and the NRA into it. And that's the point at which I realize it's time for you to take off the tin foil hat. And I'm gonna stop responding to you because you are aren't rational.
But there is something you should think about. Gun control arguments are based on emotion mostly, except in the cases where correlary of data is provided. Correlations CANNOT prove anything. But they can be used to disprove theories.
My point is...there is also ample correlary evidence to suggest more guns DOES NOT = more crime. It proves you are wrong. It ain't about the gun.
Yet, I know it won't matter a lick to you. No matter how much data, logic and reasoning I provide, I am sure you will always believe more gun control is the answer. There are politicians out there who won't listen to reason either. They don't care about the likely consequences of actually increasing violence be restricting legal access to firearms. These folks will continue to push, violate laws and the constitution just to get their way. This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Because their is a line that will be drawn, and it will be the progressive that provokes the senseless violence that will follow. I fear that day very much, but believe it's not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
I've debated dozens of gun control advocates. You all can be profiled into one of a few categories. You fit the "changes the subject all the time" profile. You don't know your facts, so you throw out irrelevant talking points.
You keep harping in the "how would you feel if it was your kid...?" What in the Hell do our "feelings" have to do with what we are debating?
You're attempting to appeal to emotion. Then you go and spread the bullshit about 18 school shootings. We all know that the most of the shootings are gang bangers shooting one another near a school, or an incident in which a gun goes off at a school accidently.
I will agree that any mass shooting at a school is awful, but to think gun control will put a stop to it is ludicrous.
It's interesting, because I see we are about the same age. But there were lots of guns around when I was in high school, but there weren't any school shootings. Hell, guys had hunting rifles in the racks of their trucks at school. The fucking guns were there AT THE SCHOOL. No one ever got shot. Not even accidently. So what changed? It wasn't the guns.
Still...you won't stop here. I know your type. Then, you really go off the rails stating the 50% of the guns are owned by 3% of the people. Doing the math, that means roughly 9.6 million people own approximately 175 million guns, which mean these folks own about 18 guns each on average. Tough stat to back up since most guns aren't registered. But let's assume it's true. So what? Do you know what people are required by law to do when they buy a gun? They have to pass a background checks. If the buy lots of guns, they pass lots of background checks.
Now, what do we know about guns used in crimes? Well approximately 90% of the people who use gun in a homicide have at least one felony (the average is 4 felonies). How did they get their guns? Oh yeah...illegally, since they can't pass a background check.
93% of the guns used in crimes are acquired illegally. They are working around the background check system.
Now...the background check system is not a crystal ball. There can be cases in which someone has no red flags, buys a gun, and uses it in a crime. But then, we are a society that believes in freedom. You don't take it away because some might abuse it.
But of course you ween't done going off the deep end. Now you bring in Bolton, Russia and the NRA into it. And that's the point at which I realize it's time for you to take off the tin foil hat. And I'm gonna stop responding to you because you are aren't rational.
But there is something you should think about. Gun control arguments are based on emotion mostly, except in the cases where correlary of data is provided. Correlations CANNOT prove anything. But they can be used to disprove theories.
My point is...there is also ample correlary evidence to suggest more guns DOES NOT = more crime. It proves you are wrong. It ain't about the gun.
Yet, I know it won't matter a lick to you. No matter how much data, logic and reasoning I provide, I am sure you will always believe more gun control is the answer. There are politicians out there who won't listen to reason either. They don't care about the likely consequences of actually increasing violence be restricting legal access to firearms. These folks will continue to push, violate laws and the constitution just to get their way. This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Because their is a line that will be drawn, and it will be the progressive that provokes the senseless violence that will follow. I fear that day very much, but believe it's not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
HerKing · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy I did explain (or rather someone else did) the spike..I posted the statistical analysis, didn't you read it? The 'spike' was mainly to do with two high profile mass murders (one over several decades) that culminated in his conviction therefore the 'total' was in that year's figures. As the UK's murder rate is far lower than the US, any significant rise from in this case very low single figure individual murder cases in any one year, skews the total.
Having said that, you do the same as you accuse me of doing, causation/ correlation.. nope. The restrictions introduced on guns had nothing at all to do with those murders; one was Harold Shipman,a family doctor who over decades had killed elderly patients. He didn't use gun (he didn't need to) therefore how he did it had no bearing on the gun restrictions brought in in 1996-7. In other words the 'spike' you mention wasn't as a result of the gun laws brought in.
Just as (for example) another school mass shooting in the US doesn't often make the news unless it's ten or more kids, over fifteen and even Fox news has to take notice. Naturally the NRA, and right wing talking heads have to then blame the victims, mental health, too many emergency doors, not enough guns in the first place, not the right kind of guns...
If you really believe lack of guns, or restricting access to guns will increase murders, then I suggest it's you who needs to take off the tin hat and rose tinted glasses.
I'm surprised you didn't throw Switzerland in the mix, there's time I guess. Psst, they don't have a full time army, so every male above 18 is installed in the militia, so has to be able to shoot. The penalties there on misuse and NDs is brutal. You'd really be spitting. As for the 2nd amendment, it's amusing, because it's cited by the gun lobby (gun manufacturers pour money into the NRA doncha know?) as the catch all. It actually refers to a 'well organised militia'. Really? (250 plus years ago, when the most advanced firearm was a flintlock musket)
How often do think that is advocated by the NRA? How about never.
Instead the gun lobby pushes for more guns, arming teachers (who can't affird to stock a school with books and materials to educate children) as some sort of nebulous panacea to solve the problem. Still, if it doesn't it sells more guns, right?
The other day I read some GOP idiot suggest to (who else) her audience of evangelical christians (I doubt Jesus would have carried a gun, but I digress) that porn was the cause of gun violence, as in magazines and videos.. sadly she didn't have time to mention the gun magazines or videos showing gun violence to balance her in depth research.
Finally, you say emotion has no place in debate, perhaps not. But I will gaurantee that all debate would empty your mind to be replaced with primal emotion leaving your lungs on a scale you cannot even imagine if you turned on the news to see it was your child's school that had just had a shooting. Debate? Sure..rationally debate that feeling. Or are you one of those who thinks Sandy Hook never happened?
Having said that, you do the same as you accuse me of doing, causation/ correlation.. nope. The restrictions introduced on guns had nothing at all to do with those murders; one was Harold Shipman,a family doctor who over decades had killed elderly patients. He didn't use gun (he didn't need to) therefore how he did it had no bearing on the gun restrictions brought in in 1996-7. In other words the 'spike' you mention wasn't as a result of the gun laws brought in.
Just as (for example) another school mass shooting in the US doesn't often make the news unless it's ten or more kids, over fifteen and even Fox news has to take notice. Naturally the NRA, and right wing talking heads have to then blame the victims, mental health, too many emergency doors, not enough guns in the first place, not the right kind of guns...
If you really believe lack of guns, or restricting access to guns will increase murders, then I suggest it's you who needs to take off the tin hat and rose tinted glasses.
I'm surprised you didn't throw Switzerland in the mix, there's time I guess. Psst, they don't have a full time army, so every male above 18 is installed in the militia, so has to be able to shoot. The penalties there on misuse and NDs is brutal. You'd really be spitting. As for the 2nd amendment, it's amusing, because it's cited by the gun lobby (gun manufacturers pour money into the NRA doncha know?) as the catch all. It actually refers to a 'well organised militia'. Really? (250 plus years ago, when the most advanced firearm was a flintlock musket)
How often do think that is advocated by the NRA? How about never.
Instead the gun lobby pushes for more guns, arming teachers (who can't affird to stock a school with books and materials to educate children) as some sort of nebulous panacea to solve the problem. Still, if it doesn't it sells more guns, right?
The other day I read some GOP idiot suggest to (who else) her audience of evangelical christians (I doubt Jesus would have carried a gun, but I digress) that porn was the cause of gun violence, as in magazines and videos.. sadly she didn't have time to mention the gun magazines or videos showing gun violence to balance her in depth research.
Finally, you say emotion has no place in debate, perhaps not. But I will gaurantee that all debate would empty your mind to be replaced with primal emotion leaving your lungs on a scale you cannot even imagine if you turned on the news to see it was your child's school that had just had a shooting. Debate? Sure..rationally debate that feeling. Or are you one of those who thinks Sandy Hook never happened?
BizSuitStacy · M
@questionWeaver thank you. HerKing lost the debate a few comments back. But it does illustrate the extent to which gun controllers will go spread their lies and the way in which they will twist words, etc.
HerKing · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy Lost what debate? As long as you're happy switching on the telly to see yet another mass shooting, where the crim has used a legally held firearm who am I to disavow you of your primitive thinking? Knock yourself out sugar. Lol.
Just don't bleat and whine if it's one of your own. You will of course, because at that moment you're life is destroyed. But as long as you get thoughts and prayers it'll be fine. ☺
Just don't bleat and whine if it's one of your own. You will of course, because at that moment you're life is destroyed. But as long as you get thoughts and prayers it'll be fine. ☺