M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Sure we can. Ancedotal evidence abounds.No one is able to prove being armed prevents needless gun deaths.
Really.The facts all seems to point in the other direction.
Prove that more guns = more gun deaths.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure we can. Ancedotal evidence abounds.No one is able to prove being armed prevents needless gun deaths.
Really.The facts all seems to point in the other direction.
Sure we can. Ancedotal evidence abounds.
Really.
Prove that more guns = more gun deaths.
Based on what? Your opinion? Most people aren't as stupid as you. And I suspect I will do a lot more to help the world than you will, cowering in your basement afraid of anarchy.
By the way...good luck when that comes. Just to reassure you I'd like to remind you of one of the best trained fighting forces in the world is in a vaguely anarchistic situation in Iraq with significantly superior firepower than you and no women/children to look after. So far over 3800 of them have died.
Good luck when the anarchy comes. You'll need it.
Wow...this is the third little rant you've gone on. Going to respond to anything I say or just continue on with the verbal diahrea?
Right Actually my foreign policy would likely be a lot more militaristic than yours.
Ahh, so now its the other side of your schizophrendic personality coming out. Buy a gun, don't buy a gun, whatever will I do?
Lmfao...right. I'm planning on dedicating my life to HR work, but I don't care about my life or anyone elses because I don't own something designed to kill people.
Man when I said you were barely literate I think I was overstating it.
Right...gun ownership=soul.
Really, you aren't qualified to tell me what my soul or my beingness are worth. But thanks for trying.
0 guns=0 gun deaths.
200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.
What an airy-fairy statement.
Let's have some real argument from you Larkinn. Provide proof that your in-lockstep-with-leftists belief that to disarm people will actually result in less crime.
Here's how this is proven:
If More guns = more gun deaths, then as the number of guns increases, the number of gun deaths will increase.
Show that the number of gun deaths has kept pace with the number of guns.
(You'll find that the number of guns increases by several million every year, and yet the number of gun deaths rises and falls within a narrow range, being 13% lower in 2004 (29569) than in 1981 (34050) and 25% lower than in 1993 (39595))
Then it is encumbent upon the person making the claim to empirically illustrate -- as aopposed to simply suggesting -- the reasons why the number of guns goes up and yet the number of gun deaths goes down.That need not be true.
Then more guns arent going to make the situation worse, thereby removing any need to make sure there are no more guns.Gun ownership could be correlated with gun deaths, but it may not be a purely direct correlation. There could be several reasons for this. At a certain saturation point, guns may be so easy to obtain that additional increases in the amount of guns may not result in an increase in gun deaths.
The arugment is more guns = more deaths. It doesnt allow for particulars like that.Further, many additional guns may just mean that many gun owners are buying multiple guns, which may have little effect on the number of gun deaths.
Guns have to exist, which is a given.There is some evidence that gun ownership is correlated to the number of gun deaths.
Handguns? The agrument isnt handguns, its all guns.If you look internationally at those countries that have outlawed handguns for instance, most of them have dramatically lower incidents of gun deaths (these kinds of studies are easy to find on the web).
Then it is encumbent upon the person making the claim to empirically illustrate -- as aopposed to simply suggesting -- the reasons why the number of guns goes up and yet the number of gun deaths goes down.
Then more guns arent going to make the situation worse, thereby removing any need to make sure there are no more guns.
The arugment is more guns = more deaths. It doesnt allow for particulars like that.
Guns have to exist, which is a given.
Other than that, the correlation must show that as the number of guns increases, the number of deaths increases as well.
Handguns? The agrument isnt handguns, its all guns.
And, there are countries with widespread gun ownership where guns deaths are low.
Long and short:
If you believe that more guns = more deaths, you will have to do a lot of work to prove it.
Only if he can show causation, not correlation.If Larkin's argument is that gun ownership should be outlawed or significantly restricted, then the evidence from other countries is telling.
Defne 'short term' and 'long term'.If the argument is simply, more guns will equal more deaths, then in the short term, this may not be borne out.
Sure. But these must be quantified, not just suggested.Also, even in the short term, there could be other factors that account for a decrease in gun deaths despite an increase in guns.
Only if he can show causation, not correlation.
And, whatever correlation there may be elsewhere, there is evidecne HERE that where guns are tightly restricted, there are more guns used in crime; where they are less restricted, there are fewer guns used in crime.
Defne 'short term' and 'long term'.
The level of gun deaths today compares favorably to those in the early 70s -- when there were far fewer people and far fewer guns.
Sure. But these must be quantified, not just suggested.
You cannot prove causation w/o correlation, but correlation -never- proves causation. Further, any instanes of high gun ownership/low number of crimes (of which there are many) must be explained.Well, I think demonstrating absolute causation in each of these countries would be difficult statistically (because you would have to account for any other variable), but if gun deaths are significantly lower per capita in nearly every other country that outlaws guns and enforces the law (outside perhaps those in the throes of civil war), then one would expect other variables to cancel out some, and this seems like it would be pretty strong evidence of causation.
That doesnt in any way change the fact that the locale in question has tight controls, and yet high crime. If tight controlls worked, then it wouldnt matter what else is in place, gun use in crime would be lower than where the controls are loose.That may be because if only certain locales in the country enforce such laws, it remains very easy for criminals to get guns from another locale.
Over the last ~40 years, there has been a vast increase of the number of guns (and population), and yet a decrease in the number of gun deaths. IMHO, that's a long term trend.In the hypothetical we were talking about? Long term effects of outlawing future gun sales but allowing continued gun ownership of previously bought guns? I have no idea what the long term would be. Many years I would suspect. Maybe 10-20 years before any reduction in gun deaths would be seen, and that is just my wild guess. Short term would be just as much of a guess on my part.
The people who so very happily argue agaisnt guns will not agree.However, I think it is probably non-contentious to suggest that gun prevalence is just one of several factors that go into the number of gun fatalities or injuries that occur each year. The economy, increased police presence, weather, the number of kids in school, etc. probably also make a difference.
You cannot prove causation w/o correlation, but correlation -never- proves causation. Further, any instanes of high gun ownership/low number of crimes (of which there are many) must be explained.
You must also relate the number of crimes to the number of guns as well -- while a country with few gun crimes might have few guns, in many cases the % of guns used in crimes will be higher than here.
That doesnt in any way change the fact that the locale in question has tight controls, and yet high crime. If tight controlls worked, then it wouldnt matter what else is in place, gun use in crime would be lower than where the controls are loose.
Over the last ~40 years, there has been a vast increase of the number of guns (and population), and yet a decrease in the number of gun deaths. IMHO, that's a long term trend.
The people who so very happily argue agaisnt guns will not agree.
Yes -- there cannot be causation w/o correlation.True, correlation does not prove causation, but correlation can be evidence for causation, and correlation with other potential variables discounted is strong evidence for causation.
Off the top of my head: Switzerland, Norway, Finnland, Israel.Yes, those other instances must be explained. I wasn't aware that there were many. What kinds of countries exhibit this, and are they similar in any regard or is it across the board.
I think you will find that in all instances, accitendal gun deaths are rather small compared to the total number of gun deaths -- but I suppose you are right.Well, you would want to find the connection between guns and gun deaths. I don't know if it is necessary to focus on crimes. That discounts accidental gun deaths.
So... making guns illegal, in and of itself, will not deter criminals from committing crimes with them.I don't think this is significant if we are talking about crime (may be significant to accidental shootings). If criminals have easy access to guns from the next locale, I don't think any gun restrictions will be sufficient to deter criminals from using guns.
Ok, but... when the 'problem' is only exhibited in a certain locale, what argument is there that the 'solution' should be implemented where the 'problem' doesnt exist?It only makes sense as a nationwide measure, unless we are talking about a large locale.
Aside from the fact that the argument that 'as the number of guns goes up, so will the number of deaths' is not sound.It is a trend, but it is not clear what it is indicative of.
Maybe. But that's not the argument.Gun prevalence is just one factor...
Maybe. But that's not the argument.
The argument is more = more. Period.
RogerI agree with some of what you say. I just wanted to point out that there is evidence that fewer guns results in fewer gun deaths. You may not think the evidence is compelling (and I am not inclined to try to persuade you that it is), but it does exist. As for the simple argument that more=more, I agree that this need not be the case, and appears not to be.
ReillyT said:Well, I think demonstrating absolute causation in each of these countries would be difficult statistically (because you would have to account for any other variable), but if gun deaths are significantly lower per capita in nearly every other country that outlaws guns and enforces the law (outside perhaps those in the throes of civil war), then one would expect other variables to cancel out some, and this seems like it would be pretty strong evidence of causation. But really, in a case like this, correlation by itself is pretty strong evidence. Hypothetical Country A outlaws guns in 2000 and gun deaths have dropped 75% in 7 years - that is pretty telling.
0 guns=0 gun deaths.
200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.
0 guns=0 gun deaths.
200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.
If Larkin's argument is that gun ownership should be outlawed or significantly restricted, then the evidence from other countries is telling. If his argument is merely that no additional guns should be allowed to be sold, then it is unlikely this would have any short-term effects. However, this should (but not necessarily) result in an eventual reduction in the number of guns available per capita over time (as guns are destroyed, become worn out, etc. & population expands), which might have positive effects. I only brought up handguns because they are often the instruments targeted when discussing gun restrictions.
If the argument is simply, more guns will equal more deaths, then in the short term, this may not be borne out. If the argument is fewer guns, fewer deaths, then comparative studies of other countries where guns have been restricted appears to support this view.
Also, even in the short term, there could be other factors that account for a decrease in gun deaths despite an increase in guns. An increase in gun ownership may (I don't know) generally yield an increase in gun deaths, but other factors such as improving economic conditions in the country, cultural changes, etc. may offset the potential increase from increased gun prevalence.