Gun control working!

[bgrouse]

I don't get offended easily.

Not a matter of personal offense. If not in this instance, when do you confront such blatantly racist commentary?

Why don't you confront it by proving it wrong?

 

[sakinago]

Ha ha, project much? I did, in fact, "address the point" tersely and squarely. Clearly not understandably to you though. So I'll expand a bit for you just this once:

Starting with "That you think" - not a logical fallacy, eh? Stuffing words into my mouth to go on and argue with yourself about? Yes son, that's textbook being a fallacious (strawman erecting) dickhead right out of the starting gate.

Next, "bad people intent on killing others" - Jesus, not only does this garbage fail to connect with anything I actually said (thus coming-from-nowhere / "non sequitur" fallacy), it's ancient NRA playbook (BORING!) gobbledygook. "Bad people" - wtf is that? Like it or not, we are a nation of laws here. Prime directive - Innocent until proven guilty! You put cart before horse with a vengeance. Yep, another fallacy. Whether you presume a portion of "people" simply "bad" or judge them "bad" due to some specific "intent" that you've imagined them having - bad or good - intent alone is not a crime (not involving physical injury at least). It's a necessary precursor to prove someone guilty of a crime (or "bad" if you insist). Point being, "bad" in such a case begs to be established, never used a priori. The same applies when substituting "criminals" is such context. Tacking on "intent on killing others" is being more specific about the "bad", otherwise the same. A tautology. The ancient "Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" meme as well.

Next, "will be deterred"(by yet another gun law) - No, I've considered violent crime prevention and reduction. I'd never waste my time trying to convince someone I actually know to be a violent criminal of anything. First I'd likely run or sneak away, then maybe call the police depending on the circumstances. A great deal more senseless death and injury could easily be prevented by further strategically limiting easy access to particular firearms and ammo. And I'm for far fewer, easily enforced, equitable, sensible laws, not more. For instance, carrying firearms conceivably "deters" some people from committing violent crimes given they're not concealed. Concealing them "deters" nothing. This sort of logic should be incorporated into pertinent law. All such law should be crafted utmost in the interests of providing for adequate public health and safety, not to "serve & protect" private (special) interests.

"That you're okay allowing" - again, follows from nothing but the noises in your head. Obviously. Earns no response. eta, In fact, what it earns is utterly ignoring anything that follows

Wtf, I still do not see the non-sequitar...I haven’t been watching the conversation all that closely, but you’re claim of a non-sequitur is only based in the context of US criminal law. Unless you believe that one can only be judged as “good/non-criminal or bad/criminal” (this was a moving of the goal posts) by a judge of the a court in the US...which is honestly silly and would make you a hypocrite (because judging other is deeply engrained in us as well as every other semi-intelligent animal, so that we don’t die). But crime still happens, whether or not the criminal gets caught...so where is the non-sequitur?

Your own argument falls under its own weight. By your standards of you are innocent until proven guilty, that concept should apply to people owning guns as well. If I go to buy a gun, it should only be assumed I am doing so for non-criminal purposes. That’s what it is for buying a car, knife, or whatever. If I own a gun, and responsibly keep it for protection/hunting/target practice...where is the problem?

And where does equity come into play in the gun control debate?? Gun control has only created inequity, and mostly effects the AA population. The whole FBI background check law has prevented some 12 million people from buying guns, sounds great right? WRONG. Let’s actually use logic for a second here. Most felons know they are felons. Most felons know that they cannot legally purchase a firearm because they will not pass the background check they have to preform. Now there are some dumb criminals out there for sure...but do you really think that there’s 12 million (I forget the actual number but that seems right) really dumb felons who have walked into a gun store to try to buy one, and filled out the background check with proper ID, and never thought for a second this will never work? So, what’s really happening here is in a country where statistically 30% of black males are felons (just stats here), and where there are a lot of duplicate ethnic names (in whatever ethnicity you are in), the vast majority of people who are getting rejected are innocent black people who have never committed a crime in their life, but happen to share the same name as someone who did. Also the high transfer tax on guns many major cities have, only effects the law abiding citizens negatively since they can not afford it (and real criminals don’t usually take the time to follow tax code when they are illegally buying a firearm). Does all that sounds equitable??

And you’ve “considered” violent crime reduction...but view having a gun as protection as trying to “convince” a violent criminal? Jesus...dont even know what to say to this straw man. Yea if you are going to call people out on logical fallacies, make sure you are not using them yourself. Here your cherry picking them (that’s a generous statement), but then you’ve used the very same two you’re crying foul on. Anyway, if guns are not a deterrent in crime, nor provide protection, then why the hell do cops carry them? In every single nation? (sure not all “Bobby’s” do, but there are still plenty in England who do). And depending on the circumstances, you’ll try to run or sneak away? Maybe in a Nancy Drew novel that works a lot. Are you going to pretend like you see something behind them and say “hey what’s that?” And then run away? A lot of variables going on there, are you faster than them, do you have a place to run or hide, is there more criminals lying in wait, what kind of weapon do they have, what is their intent, etc. You need to step up your “consideration” game.

While you’re doing that, here is something to consider. Why is it in Switzerland, you are issued a fully automatic assault rifle, can sling it around your shoulder whenever you want, go to a coffee shop without anyone else thinking twice...and yet Switzerland is the safest country on the planet (consistently top 3 for a long ass time now)?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wtf, I still do not see the non-sequitar...I haven’t been watching the conversation all that closely, but you’re claim of a non-sequitur is only based in the context of US criminal law. Unless you believe that one can only be judged as “good/non-criminal or bad/criminal” (this was a moving of the goal posts) by a judge of the a court in the US...which is honestly silly and would make you a hypocrite (because judging other is deeply engrained in us as well as every other semi-intelligent animal, so that we don’t die). But crime still happens, whether or not the criminal gets caught...so where is the non-sequitur?

Weirdness. The whole point was one can't logically discriminate, clearly with harm intended against others, and with no specification or excuse provided other than mentioning their perceived skin color or ethnicity. Of course people generalize all the time. Racism lives on. Haters gonna hate. Crimes continue. Yes, discrimination is sometimes legal and wise. But not with clear malice, be they judge or educated adult. Particularly in this country, which has mostly bragged of its immigrant roots historically. In fact, judges must swear an oath not to do so here. Our unabashed racist demands "proof" that it's "wrong" to maliciously discriminate as he did above. Well, context always being paramount, consult the board rules here or with a moderator if any doubt remains. Even a Bible if it might help.

Your own argument falls under its own weight. By your standards of you are innocent until proven guilty, that concept should apply to people owning guns as well. If I go to buy a gun, it should only be assumed I am doing so for non-criminal purposes. That’s what it is for buying a car, knife, or whatever. If I own a gun, and responsibly keep it for protection/hunting/target practice...where is the problem?

Your problem appears to be persecution delusion. Nobody's even hinted at wanting to grab any of your things in particular. Nobody cares. Yet here you are getting all defensive in public about your stuff. When one can't attach a higher purpose to public safety, health protection, civil rights, etc there's really nothing further to discuss. Too self-obsessed to give a shit about "others" beyond your immediate circle of comfort? Sorry, raised enough kids already. Not interested. I've found Brits advanced in this realm compared to us. Hell, I've learned much about this directly from Brits actually. Sadly, you've gone mostly downhill along with the rest of us "developed nations" since electing Thatcher. Real shame that.

And yeah, I link to U.S. law because I live here and this is usmessageboard.com last I checked. Doesn't mean I disrespect or fail to consider opinions from beyond. I'm just sharing authoritative local references for chrissakes. Do you normally provide legal opinions from Pakistan to back your legal assertions or what?

 

[Grumblenuts]

And where does equity come into play in the gun control debate??

Really? Equity - "The quality of being fair and impartial." - has no place here? Only in your woefully limited imagination, son. Screw this. Call me when you grow up.

 

[Claudette]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Yup. Europe has disarmed its citizens "for their own safety."

So the only people in Europe who are armed are the criminals.

With the world black market in guns if they have the money, they will be armed.

Sure pays to be a helpless European. LOL

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The right to self defense is the most basic of Human Rights, but the Crazy Left Wingers only care about their criminal buddies.

 

[sakinago]

Wtf, I still do not see the non-sequitar...I haven’t been watching the conversation all that closely, but you’re claim of a non-sequitur is only based in the context of US criminal law. Unless you believe that one can only be judged as “good/non-criminal or bad/criminal” (this was a moving of the goal posts) by a judge of the a court in the US...which is honestly silly and would make you a hypocrite (because judging other is deeply engrained in us as well as every other semi-intelligent animal, so that we don’t die). But crime still happens, whether or not the criminal gets caught...so where is the non-sequitur?

Weirdness. The whole point was one can't logically discriminate, clearly with harm intended against others, and with no specification or excuse provided other than mentioning their perceived skin color or ethnicity. Of course people generalize all the time. Racism lives on. Haters gonna hate. Crimes continue. Yes, discrimination is sometimes legal and wise. But not with clear malice, be they judge or educated adult. Particularly in this country, which has mostly bragged of its immigrant roots historically. In fact, judges must swear an oath not to do so here. Our unabashed racist demands "proof" that it's "wrong" to maliciously discriminate as he did above. Well, context always being paramount, consult the board rules here or with a moderator if any doubt remains. Even a Bible if it might help.

Your own argument falls under its own weight. By your standards of you are innocent until proven guilty, that concept should apply to people owning guns as well. If I go to buy a gun, it should only be assumed I am doing so for non-criminal purposes. That’s what it is for buying a car, knife, or whatever. If I own a gun, and responsibly keep it for protection/hunting/target practice...where is the problem?

Your problem appears to be persecution delusion. Nobody's even hinted at wanting to grab any of your things in particular. Nobody cares. Yet here you are getting all defensive in public about your stuff. When one can't attach a higher purpose to public safety, health protection, civil rights, etc there's really nothing further to discuss. Too self-obsessed to give a shit about "others" beyond your immediate circle of comfort? Sorry, raised enough kids already. Not interested. I've found Brits advanced in this realm compared to us. Hell, I've learned much about this directly from Brits actually. Sadly, you've gone mostly downhill along with the rest of us "developed nations" since electing Thatcher. Real shame that.

And yeah, I link to U.S. law because I live here and this is usmessageboard.com last I checked. Doesn't mean I disrespect or fail to consider opinions from beyond. I'm just sharing authoritative local references for chrissakes. Do you normally provide legal opinions from Pakistan to back your legal assertions or what?

Maybe I missed some racist point from earlier, but an argument over race was not the point I garnered over your last post. The point I got was that which was stated that, good people with guns stop bad people with guns is a non-sequitur. And I will definitely disagree with your point that discrimination, at least that based on skin color, can be wise. This goes back to the term equity, if you mean equity the way you define it, the discrimination based on skin color is not wise. If you mean equity the way it’s commonly used today, as equality in outcome, I disagree with that.

Raised too many kids, therefore I know better? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me. And thanks for bringing up the brits on this issue, I already have. They represent a good case study on the matter since they’ve impletemented strict gun control recently. You talk about me not caring about “public safety” (straw man), well let’s look at the facts in Britain since they’ve implemented strict gun control. Within a decade of implementing gun control, gun crime doubled in London. Now, as the OP states, knife crimes are on the rise despite effort to use “knife control.” As a matter of fact, in EVERY SINGLE INSTANT a country has implemented gun control, the murder rates skyrocket, there is no exception. Let’s look at another country I’ve mentioned, Switzerland’s (which you seemed to gloss over). If gun control is necessary for public safety, why is a country with so little gun control that they actually hand out full auto assault rifles (true weapons of war) to their citizens to freely carry around whenever they please in public, yet Switzerland is one of the safest countries on the planet. If guns are the problem and gun control is this the solution, then why aren’t full auto mass killing machines dropping people left and right in Switzerland, and why is it that after impelmenting gun control in London (or any other country for that matter) always see a long lasting rise in gun crime and murders? Are the law makers in those countries just pshycic and predict that gun crime is going to elevated so they need to pass a law to try to curb it? Or is it simply that good people with guns stop bad people with guns, or whatever, and criminals don’t obey gun control laws, so you just create easy targets for criminals?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The right to self defense is the most basic of Human Rights

Hey, welcome to my clownmobile, Knucklehead!

I said that voting was the most sacred right of free men and women. I pledged that as long as I am in a position to uphold the Constitution, no barrier would ever come between a secret ballot and the citizen's right to east one. Today I am reaffirming that commitment.

[the belief that each life is sacred] the first and most basic of human rights.

{Ha, the right to a belief? "The Great Communicator" pfft! Sure blew it there, but no one was really paying attention back then either}

With the destructive power of today's weapons, keeping the peace is not just a goal; it's a sacred obligation. But maintaining peace requires more than sincerity and idealism—more than optimism and good will. As you know well, peace is a product of hard, strenuous labor by those dedicated to its preservation. It requires realism, not wishful thinking.

By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The point I got was that which was stated that, good people with guns stop bad people with guns is a non-sequitur.

Yes, it didn't follow. Not a logical response to anything I had actually said. Among other things!

And I will definitely disagree with your point that discrimination, at least that based on skin color, can be wise.

Well, I was agreeing with you, so go figure. Meaning discriminating in favor of minorities {Blacks, the elderly, disabled...} competing for employment, government subsidized housing, ... "wise." Yes, equal outcome. Not exact "equal treatment under the law."

Raised too many kids, therefore I know better? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

Right! Only injecting some levity for sanity!

You talk about me not caring about “public safety” (straw man)

Red herring maybe, but let's not mince fish here...

let’s look at the facts in Britain since they’ve implemented strict gun control. Within a decade of implementing gun control, gun crime doubled in London.

So let's immediately forget that you brought up the whole country and focus upon only tiny slices in London's stats. Yeah, you're not serious. More like emotionally driven to protect inanimate objects from the animate. Cherry picking 101, or insufficient sample, or hasty generalization,....
As for the rest, search for gun nuts debunking common gun nut inanities and talking points. All retreads, worn out long ago. Hopefully you can understand a reformed one of your own.

 

[sakinago]

The point I got was that which was stated that, good people with guns stop bad people with guns is a non-sequitur.

Yes, it didn't follow. Not a logical response to anything I had actually said. Among other things!

And I will definitely disagree with your point that discrimination, at least that based on skin color, can be wise.

Well, I was agreeing with you, so go figure. Meaning discriminating in favor of minorities {Blacks, the elderly, disabled...} competing for employment, government subsidized housing, ... "wise." Yes, equal outcome. Not exact "equal treatment under the law."

Raised too many kids, therefore I know better? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

Right! Only injecting some levity for sanity!

You talk about me not caring about “public safety” (straw man)

Red herring maybe, but let's not mince fish here...

let’s look at the facts in Britain since they’ve implemented strict gun control. Within a decade of implementing gun control, gun crime doubled in London.

So let's immediately forget that you brought up the whole country and focus upon only tiny slices in London's stats. Yeah, you're not serious. More like emotionally driven to protect inanimate objects from the animate. Cherry picking 101, or insufficient sample, or hasty generalization,....
As for the rest, search for gun nuts debunking common gun nut inanities and talking points. All retreads, worn out long ago. Hopefully you can understand a reformed one of your own.

So when I pointed out how gun control laws created inequity for AA, and the poor alike...that doesn’t bother you at all, because it’s with guns so whatever? And back to equity and “positive” discrimination laws, there may at one point been an argument for it, one that i’d probably disagree with, but in these days there is no systemic racism. Actually there is, coming from AA Laws that actually hold Asian populations to a higher standard for college admissions (especially in the higher end schools) than any other race group out there. Positive discrimination laws may have a feel good effect when a person is for them, but it discriminated by its nature, and one or more group (usually another minority/ies) gets hurt from it.

And the crime stats rise for the country as a whole, it’s not cherry picking either. It would be if I mentioned an area that wasn’t representative...but crime is low in non urban regions vs urban regions (I should say in areas of high concentration of low socioeconomic status) for 1st world countries generally. Anyway, concentrations of LSE folks is where you’ll see the most movement for EFFECTIVE crime reduction laws. Not that it matters, since if gun control does work, you should not have seen gun crime double over a decade, does the city matter (mind you this is one of the strictest cities on guns)? And once again, Switzerland, full autos issued to citizens, open carry, safest place on earth...

 

[bgrouse]

The right to self defense is the most basic of Human Rights, but the Crazy Left Wingers only care about their criminal buddies.

How are dead violent criminals supposed to vote for democrats?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So when I pointed out how gun control laws created inequity for AA, and the poor alike...that doesn’t bother you at all, because it’s with guns so whatever?

All in your opinion. You're entitled to your opinions. They are not mine. And when you "point" controversial things "out" that you expect to be taken seriously at least make some attempt to back them with corroborating, unbiased, authoritative quotes and/or sources.

And back to equity and “positive” discrimination laws, there may at one point been an argument for it, one that i’d probably disagree with, but in these days there is no systemic racism. Actually there is,

Yes, there's plenty actually. No shortage whatsoever:

The term "institutional racism" was coined and first used in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]". They gave examples:

"When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of power, food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it."[3]

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

Now guess how many black children have been dying in Birmingham lately?

And, sorry, but here's the reality in the UK:

In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law which is much more restrictive than the minimum rules required by the European Firearms Directive, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1] There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.[2] There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.[3][4][5] Office for National Statistics figures show 7,866 offences in which firearms were involved in the year ending March 2015, 2% up on the previous year and the first increase in 10 years. Of these, 19 were fatalities, 10 fewer than the previous year and the lowest since records began in 1969.[6] There was a further rise to 8,399 in the year ending March 2016, the highest number in four years, but significantly lower than the all-time high of 24,094 in 2003/04. Twenty-six resulted in fatal injuries.

How about Birmingham? Glad you asked:

A total of 100 homicides were reported in the city over the course of the year.
{...}
At least eighty homicides were shootings

Now, gun control measures do whaaa?

 

[sakinago]

So when I pointed out how gun control laws created inequity for AA, and the poor alike...that doesn’t bother you at all, because it’s with guns so whatever?

All in your opinion. You're entitled to your opinions. They are not mine. And when you "point" controversial things "out" that you expect to be taken seriously at least make some attempt to back them with corroborating, unbiased, authoritative quotes and/or sources.

And back to equity and “positive” discrimination laws, there may at one point been an argument for it, one that i’d probably disagree with, but in these days there is no systemic racism. Actually there is,

Yes, there's plenty actually. No shortage whatsoever:

The term "institutional racism" was coined and first used in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]". They gave examples:

"When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of power, food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it."[3]

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

Now guess how many black children have been dying in Birmingham lately?

And, sorry, but here's the reality in the UK:

In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law which is much more restrictive than the minimum rules required by the European Firearms Directive, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1] There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.[2] There is some concern over the availability of illegal firearms.[3][4][5] Office for National Statistics figures show 7,866 offences in which firearms were involved in the year ending March 2015, 2% up on the previous year and the first increase in 10 years. Of these, 19 were fatalities, 10 fewer than the previous year and the lowest since records began in 1969.[6] There was a further rise to 8,399 in the year ending March 2016, the highest number in four years, but significantly lower than the all-time high of 24,094 in 2003/04. Twenty-six resulted in fatal injuries.

How about Birmingham? Glad you asked:

A total of 100 homicides were reported in the city over the course of the year.
{...}
At least eighty homicides were shootings

Now, gun control measures do whaaa?

An appeal to ignorance now? Prove it? Whenever someone posts a stat that interest me, or that I have a hard time believing, I found this really great resource to look it up. It’s called the internet, it’s pretty nice. I type in some sort of question into things called “search engines”, and all sorts of information on that question pops up. I think this technology might very well change the world. Seriously, if you posted some stats that I thought were flat out wrong, I would be eager to look it up and point out how it is wrong. Not make an appeal to ignorance, especially in this day and age.

So you try to refute my point on the UK by pointing out a single aspect of crime in the UK, that the UK is a relatively safe country, compared to the US. Here’s some weakeners to that argument that turn it into dust. The UK has been a safe place in the world, compared to the US even, long before gun control was implemented. You also failed to refute my point on how the UK is a great case study of gun control laws. If gun control laws work, then there should be a reduction in gun crime. There isn’t, gun crime doubled within a decade. Another weakener is another European country that has even more lax gun laws than the US, yet it is even safer than the UK. Yet another weakener is the fact that crime has been dropping worldwide, including in the US and UK, so while gun sales in were rising over the past 10-15 years, gun crime was dropping. So it’s only logical to look at gun crime stats in the years preceding and following gun control implementations for comparison, which your argument does not do.

And it seems you just gave me a definition of institutional racism from the past, but didn’t back it up with actual facts, or stats. I could give you a definition of god, but that doesn’t make it real.

 

[Grumblenuts]

appeal to ignorance

My ass. You're ridiculous.

The UK has been a safe place in the world, compared to the US even, long before gun control was implemented.

Never hinted otherwise. In fact, it only further reveals how pathetic that argument has always been. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch (again) it'd be pushin' up the daisies!

If gun control laws work, then there should be a reduction in gun crime.

Very good! And they have! In the long run! As I've shown you! Which is the actual test! You're welcome!

which your argument does not do.

Correction: YOUR arguments. Go ahead and quote us both side by side to compare... I dare ya. Truth is you haven't actually presented anything here other than your own strongly held beliefs. They're a dime a dozen. Like assholes. Everyone's got them.

And it seems you just gave me a definition of institutional racism from the past, but didn’t back it up with actual facts, or stats. I could give you a definition of god, but that doesn’t make it real.

OMG, you're soooooo hopeless. Good luck! We're done.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How are dead violent criminals supposed to vote for democrats?

They make up 35% of the base.


Behold, the main democrat voting block:

 

[sakinago]

appeal to ignorance

My ass. You're ridiculous.

The UK has been a safe place in the world, compared to the US even, long before gun control was implemented.

Never hinted otherwise. In fact, it only further reveals how pathetic that argument has always been. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch (again) it'd be pushin' up the daisies!

If gun control laws work, then there should be a reduction in gun crime.

Very good! And they have! In the long run! As I've shown you! Which is the actual test! You're welcome!

which your argument does not do.

Correction: YOUR arguments. Go ahead and quote us both side by side to compare... I dare ya. Truth is you haven't actually presented anything here other than your own strongly held beliefs. They're a dime a dozen. Like assholes. Everyone's got them.

And it seems you just gave me a definition of institutional racism from the past, but didn’t back it up with actual facts, or stats. I could give you a definition of god, but that doesn’t make it real.

OMG, you're soooooo hopeless. Good luck! We're done.

Not ridiculous, you gave a textbook example of an appeal to ignorance. I could probably put together a textbook of logical fallacies quoting you. Again, if you are going to use them to call people out...make sure your not using them yourself. Feel free to call me on them, but don’t be surprised when I give pushback, or even when I admit to them. Because I care about reasoning and debate, and wish to use my mistakes to sharpen myself, not be a parrot.

I gave solid reasons why the “long run” is just a snapshot of a more complex issue, and isn’t at all a fair representative of the actual situation. That situation being GUN CRIMES DOUBLED IN A DECADE AND TOOK ANOTHER DECADE TO COME DOWN. How is that a less valuable stat than one from over 2 decades later? So I guess your reasoning is F those victims during the gun crime doubling, it came down eventually? And there are reasons that it came down that gun control does not account for, since they’ve been coming down worldwide pretty drastically. You are less likely to die from violence today than at any time during human history. Despite as crazy as the world seems (thanks to the media’s if it bleeds it leads practice), we should be jumping for joy at how far we have come as a species. It’s pretty remarkable.

They say if you want someone to remember something, repeat it three times. You keep seeming to forget to address this point so...Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland, citizens with full auto assault rifles, walking down the street, safest place on earth, what’s up with that? Why have guns sales gone up in the US and gun crime come down? Why is it in every single case when a country has implemented gun control, murder rates go up? These aren’t my beliefs, these are facts. If they were just my beliefs, prove them wrong, it shouldn’t be hard. Again technology is pretty sweet these days.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I could probably put together a textbook

Forget writing a textbook because they have footnotes pointing to authoritative, unbiased, scientifically researched, peer reviewed sources and stuff that actually establishes fact as much as facts can be established I've done all of that here. You've presented absolutely nothing to back all these tired old talking points you keep regurgitating, seemingly blissfully unaware just how tired and worn out they already were before you were born. Sorry. It takes two to tango, son, and you're clearly not ready. As I already said, we're done here. Stop listening to conservatives rant and simply repeating their crap. Learn something real. Read! Listen! Think!

 

[bgrouse]

I could probably put together a textbook

Forget writing a textbook because they have footnotes pointing to authoritative, unbiased, scientifically researched, peer reviewed sources and stuff that actually establishes fact as much as facts can be established I've done all of that here. You've presented absolutely nothing to back all these tired old talking points you keep regurgitating, seemingly blissfully unaware just how tired and worn out they already were before you were born.

Tired, worn out, repeated ad nauseum, and morons like you still don't get it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Tired, worn out, repeated ad nauseum, and

Very good, "repeated ad nauseum" indeed. Close. Try "Hey, I got my marching orders from the reformed NRA leadership directly from FOX media. Now all I do is cluelessly repeat their tired, worn out, think tank generated talking points ad nauseum, of course never providing any genuine reasoned argument, let alone backup because, well, obviously none exists. Never a problem though. I just keep screaming 'Prove me wrong!' Hell, I was convinced so smell me!"
Ha ha.

 

[sakinago]

I could probably put together a textbook

Forget writing a textbook because they have footnotes pointing to authoritative, unbiased, scientifically researched, peer reviewed sources and stuff that actually establishes fact as much as facts can be established I've done all of that here. You've presented absolutely nothing to back all these tired old talking points you keep regurgitating, seemingly blissfully unaware just how tired and worn out they already were before you were born. Sorry. It takes two to tango, son, and you're clearly not ready. As I already said, we're done here. Stop listening to conservatives rant and simply repeating their crap. Learn something real. Read! Listen! Think!

(A prioriI) it’s conservative talking points, so it’s crap, just because it is. If it is crap, by all means point out how it is crap. Why is it crap?