More Americans killed by guns than all the wars we have ever fought

[RDD_1210]

What makes you think you trounced him to begin with? Because you said so?

Because he brushed off multiple points by changing topics. I'm still waiting for his answer about Japan. That was pages ago.

Japanese Gun Control​

www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Japanese Gun Control. ... II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil. ... Near absolute gun prohibition had existed for over three centuries, ...

So what you're saying is it is possible to ban guns and they won't magically find their way in to the hands of criminals as so many gun nuts like to argue.

Great point!

 

[Redfish]

Watch, I'll show you up again. Explain why Japan has so few gun related murders? Like next to nothing. Does Japan have no criminals?
When you don't answer this again. I'll have shown you up....again.

the japanese culture is nothing like ours. the two are not comparable.

Right, it's nothing like ours. They don't have some weird need to justify the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year so they can keep their toys.

Great point!

that was not my point, I know many japanese, having done business there for many years. they admire the freedoms we have in the US and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.

my comment about culture was trying to point out that the japanese are a culturally homogeneous population, almost like one big family. Totally unlike the USA.

 

[RDD_1210]

Because he brushed off multiple points by changing topics. I'm still waiting for his answer about Japan. That was pages ago.

Japanese Gun Control​

www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Japanese Gun Control. ... II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil. ... Near absolute gun prohibition had existed for over three centuries, ...

but they all have samurai swords and knives of all sizes and shapes.

how do you propose to remove all of the guns from the hands of criminals in the USA?

Actually japanese citizens must apply for and register their swords. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[Redfish]

Because he brushed off multiple points by changing topics. I'm still waiting for his answer about Japan. That was pages ago.

Japanese Gun Control​

www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Japanese Gun Control. ... II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil. ... Near absolute gun prohibition had existed for over three centuries, ...

So what you're saying is it is possible to ban guns and they won't magically find their way in to the hands of criminals as so many gun nuts like to argue.

Great point!

foolish attempt at an analogy, doesn't work, but enjoy your self agrandisement

 

[Redfish]

Japanese Gun Control​

www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Japanese Gun Control. ... II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil. ... Near absolute gun prohibition had existed for over three centuries, ...

but they all have samurai swords and knives of all sizes and shapes.

how do you propose to remove all of the guns from the hands of criminals in the USA?

Actually japanese citizens must apply for and register their swords. Thanks for bringing that up.

is that what you want in the USA? registration of every kitchen knife?

 

[RDD_1210]

the japanese culture is nothing like ours. the two are not comparable.

Right, it's nothing like ours. They don't have some weird need to justify the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year so they can keep their toys.

Great point!

that was not my point, I know many japanese, having done business there for many years. they admire the freedoms we have in the US and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.

my comment about culture was trying to point out that the japanese are a culturally homogeneous population, almost like one big family. Totally unlike the USA.

Oh so our crime here is mostly different ethnic backgrounds killing each other? And Japan doesn't have criminals? Is that what you're saying?

 

[RDD_1210]

but they all have samurai swords and knives of all sizes and shapes.

how do you propose to remove all of the guns from the hands of criminals in the USA?

Actually japanese citizens must apply for and register their swords. Thanks for bringing that up.

is that what you want in the USA? registration of every kitchen knife?

I'm willing to be reasonable and just focus on guns. See...compromise.

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course it would be good for people to defend themselves. But reality shows us thats not what is happening. For every one person who fends off a home invader with their gun how many more people are shot who did own a gun? Owning a gun does not deter criminals. If it did, we'd have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world.

Dear RDD I agree it is not the "gun" that deters criminals, any more than it is the "gun"
that causes gun violence.

It is the consistent enforcement of laws that deters crime, and
owning a gun for the purpose of defending the Constitution is one way of establishing that.

Wherever force is abused to violate consent of others, whether by force of arms, or force of law or government such as legal or political abuse, this subverts the law and opens the door to encourage more bullying and crime to bypass civil protections of people's right to consent.

Taking away the right to bear arms from law-abiding citizens, contradicts and weakens
the laws, and diminishes respect for law enforcement based on consent and due process.

The point is not to take rights away that citizens would normally have, unless they have committed a crime or intend to, and have gone through due process to prove they are a threat to security, instead of using guns lawfully for defense as any police or military officer.

P.S. about debating God, I believe it can be shown that people of all views even nontheists believe in universal principles that align with the same things that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit
represent; and that whether people can align and reconcile their views CORRELATES with the degree of FORGIVENESS or UNFORGIVENESS they hold towards any opposing view.
We could show there are universal concepts that all religions and views represent in different contexts and terms, agreement can be reached that God/Jesus means those things, and where agreement cannot be reached we can either use statistics or real life examples to show "unforgiveness" is the factor preventing reconciliation between people of different views, because those who are willing to forgive can resolve similar conflicts.

 

[Redfish]

Right, it's nothing like ours. They don't have some weird need to justify the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year so they can keep their toys.

Great point!

that was not my point, I know many japanese, having done business there for many years. they admire the freedoms we have in the US and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.

my comment about culture was trying to point out that the japanese are a culturally homogeneous population, almost like one big family. Totally unlike the USA.

Oh so our crime here is mostly different ethnic backgrounds killing each other? And Japan doesn't have criminals? Is that what you're saying?

Japan has crime, but Japan does not have ghetto dwelling gang bangers killing each other over drug turf.

 

[Redfish]

Actually japanese citizens must apply for and register their swords. Thanks for bringing that up.

is that what you want in the USA? registration of every kitchen knife?

I'm willing to be reasonable and just focus on guns. See...compromise.

We already have gun registration laws, why not just enforce the laws we already have?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

More Americans have been killed by guns since 1968, than have been killed in all the wars the United States has ever fought.

1,171,177 killed in all the wars we have ever fought.

1,384,171 killed by guns in the United States since 1968.

PolitiFact | PBS commentator Mark Shields says more killed by guns since '68 than in all U.S. wars

This is your title of the thread.
More Americans killed by guns than all the wars we have ever fought
So our first war was after 1968?

Come to think about it 1968 was the big push for gun control. So chris is saying with the NFA 1968 more people were killed.

 

[emilynghiem]

So what you're saying is it is possible to ban guns and they won't magically find their way in to the hands of criminals as so many gun nuts like to argue.

Great point!

I think if the Japanese lived along the border between US and Mexico,
they would surely arm themselves with guns.

And if all the people who want to ban guns want to move to Japan,
that might be smarter than arguing with Americans who want to keep their guns!

P.S. when you get bored with that, try arguing with feminists who
want to keep their right to free choice and don't trust politicians
in govt to regulate that either! Don't you SEE that is the real issue?

Can you find me ONE PERSON, Japanese or American, liberal or conservative, etc.,
who wants, much less TRUSTS, someone from an opposing party or viewpoint to get into a govt position and use that authority to regulate rights the opposing party is against
but the defending party is for? Who WANTS that??? NOBODY I KNOW!!!
THAT'S THE ISSUE! Of course they don't trust authorities with those choices
who don't trust them either with their choices! And threatening to take rights away
and change laws without consent but by force doesn't help that distrust but makes it worse!

 

[emilynghiem]

We already have gun registration laws, why not just enforce the laws we already have?

Because enforcing laws to have citizens as well self-regulated as the militia would require mass public education and agreement between people and govt to abide equally by the Constitution, which would expose the hypocrisy and abuses of the parties and corporations that have been skirting checks and balances to violate Constitutional principles.

 

[emilynghiem]

I want to see gun laws tightened because I can see data in other countries showing that they have figured out how to reduce gun violence dramatically compared to us. I want guns restricted because they offer no inherent value other than to kill or injure. If they were a measure of security, we would be the safest place in the world with the amount of guns we have per capita. But we're FAR from it. Why is that? Bad guys aren't deterred by people who have guns and eliminating guns won't eliminate criminals but it will result in fewer deaths when violent crimes happen as the data from numerous other countries show us can happen when done the right way.

And there is no way I can prove with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove with 100% certainty that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist or that Tupac isn't still alive or that the loch ness monster isn't real. But I can prove that in all likelihood, "God either doesn't exist OR is powerless OR doesn't give a shit". One of the three is absolutely true. That much I can prove. Do you wish to proceed?

Dear RDD:
A. How's this for consistent Constitutional law enforcement to deter gun abuse and violence:
By the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is within the context of a well-regulated militia; presumably using arms as defense to enforce laws, as under the Constitution. So why not require all gun owners to take the same oath and training as military and police officers, and also have citizens sign agreements that if they are convicted of ABUSING firearms in the process of committing a PREMEDITATED crime, especially murder rape robbery or other violence, they agree to forfeit their citizenship and work in a prison labor camp, in exchange for an immigrant worker on the waiting list for citizenship, for the length of the conviction sentence, including up to life in prison. That way criminal behavior has consequences of paying restitution to the crime victims and society, while law-abiding residents are rewarded with the right to work for an honest living and contribute to society.

B. I can show that all people follow patterns of naturally believing in aspects, values, or concepts "attributed or associated with God" that are real to them, and not the same as whatever is represented by loch ness or spaghetti monsters, etc. And that aligning and reconciling these concepts with what Theists mean by God can be done to the same degree that people are willing to forgive their differences; while failure to reconcile correlates with unwillingness to forgive these differences. So it can be established by aligning terms and concepts "associated with God" without people agreeing, believing or perceiving the same things; we can still shown alignment in concept and principle while views remain different.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey Look, Chris and Avatar:
Montana Bill Would Legalize Roadkill Dining - ABC News

Montana just solved the dilemma with guns and cars.
Now you can legally hunt game using your car as a weapon!
So who needs guns?

Dear Chris: I guess while you are at it, maybe you should ban
angry spouses or depressed teens? Would that solve the problem if they are the cause?

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

Nancy Lanza found this out when her son killed her and two dozen school children in Newtown.

People who drive cras are more likely to die in car accidents. According to your "logic" we should ban cars too.

Thanks, I agree this analogy of Avatar's was a fair way to point out the illogic in Chris' argument. And it does not matter if Avatar agrees or disagrees with either gun or car policies, either way, the analogy is a close parallel and helps explain the fallacy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks for posting this!
Sadly it reminds me of people debating whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect.
The solution again is CONSISTENT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Anything consistent has a deterrent effects by reinforcing respect for law and order, anything inconsistent has holes in it that just attract criminal intent to take advantage of.

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[RDD_1210]

that was not my point, I know many japanese, having done business there for many years. they admire the freedoms we have in the US and especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.

my comment about culture was trying to point out that the japanese are a culturally homogeneous population, almost like one big family. Totally unlike the USA.

Oh so our crime here is mostly different ethnic backgrounds killing each other? And Japan doesn't have criminals? Is that what you're saying?

Japan has crime, but Japan does not have ghetto dwelling gang bangers killing each other over drug turf.

So Columbine was over drug turf?
Newton was over drug turf?
Aurora was over drug turf?
Virginia tech was over drug turf?
Fort hood was over drug turf?
The Sikh temple was over drug turf?
Etc...

What were you saying again?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Oh so our crime here is mostly different ethnic backgrounds killing each other? And Japan doesn't have criminals? Is that what you're saying?

Japan has crime, but Japan does not have ghetto dwelling gang bangers killing each other over drug turf.

So Columbine was over drug turf?
Newton was over drug turf?
Aurora was over drug turf?
Virginia tech was over drug turf?
Fort hood was over drug turf?
The Sikh temple was over drug turf?
Etc...

What were you saying again?

I think he was talking about places like Chicago...were you know black folks are killed by the minute, but unless the trigger was pulled by whitey, democrats dont care...ironic I think

and for columbine, how about we lock up people in asylums....you know like we did before the 70s movement to set them free (great idea, more crazies and it gave us the homeless problem....yay democrats!)

 

[RDD_1210]

Japan has crime, but Japan does not have ghetto dwelling gang bangers killing each other over drug turf.

So Columbine was over drug turf?
Newton was over drug turf?
Aurora was over drug turf?
Virginia tech was over drug turf?
Fort hood was over drug turf?
The Sikh temple was over drug turf?
Etc...

What were you saying again?

I think he was talking about places like Chicago...were you know black folks are killed by the minute, but unless the trigger was pulled by whitey, democrats dont care...ironic I think

and for columbine, how about we lock up people in asylums....you know like we did before the 70s movement to set them free (great idea, more crazies and it gave us the homeless problem....yay democrats!)

The point is, Japan does have crime, they do have insane people but they don't have guns.

They also don't have the daily gun violence that we have (which as pointed out can be heavily from violence in turf wars) but they also don't have mass killing sprees in non-drug/turf related situations like we do here. So we have all kinds of violence that Japan doesn't have. Why? They don't have the access to guns that we have.