A chronically obese guy goes to his doctor for a routine check-up. After a thorough examination, the doctor informs him that he has high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol levels and type two diabetes. Fat dude ponders this for a while and then announces that he will cure all of his ailments by eating more Big Macs and drinking even more Coke. The doctor patiently puts before him evidence from all over the world that tells fatso that his strategy will result in his death. At this, lardass pounds the doctors desk, calls him a liar and ells him that his arguments lack logic. He further tells the doctor that it's his god given right to eat what he wants and as much of it as his (ridiculously strained) heart desired.
Two weeks later, the fat guy has a massive heart attack and drops down dead.
The local news station turns up at his home and interviews his grief stricken wife. She tells them what a wonderful guy he was, that he was an amazing father and husband. His mother, who was also at the house, tells them that he was a dutiful son and a credit to the family.
The TV crew then takes to the streets and starts to interview his friends and neighbours. All echo the sentiments of his widow and mother. All bemoan his sudden and tragic passing. However, one of them mentions his recent visit to the doctor.
They track down the doctor who tells them that he was morbidly obese and that he had warned him about the possibility of a heart attack. The doctor tells them about the guys test results. The doctor tells them about the research and medical facts that he showed his former patient. The doctor tells them that the recently deceased fat guy had refused to listen to his medical advice and had instead cited his “god given right to eat what he wants and as much of it as his heart desired.”
The piece was picked up, and re-broadcast, by Fox News. Hannity & co ridicule the doctor and the causal effect of bad diet and heart disease. Hannity blusters that McDonalds and Coca-Cola are much loved American institutions and that every American must defend them against leftist, liberal doctors.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@FelixLegion Well the 2 studies prove your point. You can find them online. You have to read through a lot of bullshit to find the gold nuggets but the data is there.
@HoraceGreenley I know the stats. By all measures the number and rate of homicides in Australia have declined since 1996 (NFA). Robbery rate rose from 1998-2001 and has declined consistently, now below pre-NFA levels.
Add “straw man” to the list of terms you don’t understand. Or find a meme to help you with it.
@luckranger71 The effect in Australia was negligible. Firearm homicides and suicides are about the same as before the 1996 ban. Banning firearms had no effect.
I the same period in the US, firearms in private hands doubled, and homicides by firearms were cut in half.
@luckranger71 Here, I'll use a Left-Wing Source: https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp [image deleted]Violent crime was basically unaffected by the gun ban.
the Primary driver of violent crime, particularly homicide, is poverty.
@luckranger71 And at no time did I say that "...Australia’s a dystopian crime ridden hellhole..."
My point was that violent crime was basically unchanged by the ban. By you stating something that I didn't say, you created a Straw Man argument, i.e.,
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
@HoraceGreenley You seem awfully triggered lil buddy!! You've used "jackass" twice. Skipper should wash your filthy alt-right mouth out with soap.😂
Let's go back to what you wrote originally:
"yep. [b][i]Look what happened when Australia banned guns[/i][/b] HoraceGreenley · 51-55, M criminals still have guns and they know their unarmed victims are easy marks HoraceGreenley · 51-55, M so says the Harvard gun study and the UN gun study HoraceGreenley · 51-55, M well the anti-gun crowd does not publish or talk about these findings. [b][i]No guns mean more violence[/i][/b]"
Emphasis added. Well, look what happened when Australia "banned" guns. (Hint, it wasn't really a "ban", but that's besides the point. The article you linked has quotes from well regarded studies:
"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with [b]no significant effect on non-firearm death rates.[/b] The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]".
and this:
"Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.[b] Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates[/b]."
And last but not least, let's go back to what you claimed initially: "NO GUNS MEAN MORE VIOLENCE". But wait, in your last post you wrote "violent crime was basically unchanged by the ban" and presented a chart that showed LOWER rates of robbery than pre-NFA. 😂😆🤦 So to spell it out, I'm glad you finally conceded that less guns didn't mean more violence. ;)
@luckranger71 The quotes you made, and the ones you list, are conclusions from the Harvard Gun Study and the UN gun study. They were not specific to Australia.
I mentioned Australia in a later reply. The point of mentioning Australia was that the gun ban had negligible effect on violent crime.
Is that clear enough?
You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
@HoraceGreenley From the Harvard study: For [b]Australia[/b], the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in [b][b]Australia[/b][/b] in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
I really appreciate you pointing us to studies that confirm that whichever jackass wrote "LESS GUNS MEANS MORE VIOLENCE" is absolutely incorrect. 😂 I know I'm currently a legend in your mind lil buddy!
Those statistics are false.
