Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
BB will undoubtedly have some anecdotal "evidence" of crime in florida without so much as a link to offer as evidence of it's veracity....You just have to take her word for it!
It's important to stay abreast of the facially reasonable, but deeply flawed, blather the hysterics put out.You do love to stir the pot, don't you?
yes! That's exactly what you are... intellectually lazy and incompetent. In spite of having your similar like failed analysis highlighted in the past, you simply come back with more of the same. You keep making reference to respective gun violence focused state-level Brady grade assignments... yet somehow, somehow... you continue to correlate those grades to murder rates at large instead of pointedly addressing related gun violence, related gun murder rates, related gun death rates. Of course you do!
you've never shown "your stats"... how you've arrived at them. It's one thing to state a reference, one that includes multiple years worth of data... it's another thing for you to show your calculations... and the exact data used in arriving at your interpretation of that data. In a prior go-around I tried to make sense of your numbers in relation to your sources... as I recall, I pointedly asked you how you arrived at a particular result. How did that go, hey?
:mrgreen: there's a reason it's called the U.S. Gun Culture!
Waldo, y'all ain't bright enough to be intellectually lazy, that would require some intellect, which you simply do not possess.
Waldo, do you REALLY believe that you are somehow....deader if somebody shoots you rather than splits your skull open with a baseball bat?
Do you not believe that the result of less gun control and more firearms in society is more people murdered?
If you do believe that, why do you have a problem with homicide statistics in the gun control debate?
If you do not believe that, why are you engaged in the debate?
The problem is really quite simple; you are incapable of understanding the debate in any rational way.
says the guy, YOU, who refuses to speak directly to gun related violence, murder and deaths. YOU, the guy whose full take on related stats, starts... and ends... with generalized murder rates ONLY! :mrgreen: How self-proclaimed "rational" of you!
Geezus Waldo, try to keep up at least.
Go back to post number 4763, posted in reply to you.........continue to posts 4765, 4767, and 4773..................
I will try to answer any questions you have after you do the basic groundwork......
damn! That's quite the tempered/restrained Colpy insult... down several thresholds from your usual degree of "losing it"!
I speak to all those things. Guns are the most used murder weapon in the USA, so I certainly speak to "gun related violence, murder and deaths" when I use homicide statistics.
But, for the umpteenth time, my premise is that more guns does not mean more murder. If someone wishes to commit murder, and there is a gun handy, they will probably use that. If a gun is not handy, they will use another weapon. Therefore the relevant stats are homicide rates, mot "gun violence" rates.
It is 6:15 AM here, I just got home from a 12 hour shift, I don't have the energy to be properly inventive.
I apologize.
I'll do better next time.
yup, yup... murder rates at large, improper correlation of gun focused Brady state grades to murder rates at large, possibly suspect correlation of Canadian versus U.S. manslaughter data within the greater at large murder ONLY rates (in this latter point don't bother to pursue as the overriding point remains, as I quote again, below), etc..
like I just said:
no you don't... if you did, if you really did, you wouldn't wig out when those direct stats for gun related violence, for gun related murder rates and for gun related death rates stats are referenced. Which, of course, has never stopped you from improperly associating Brady grades to murder rates at large!
ya, ya... this is always GOLD whenever you trot it out! It completely diminishes/ignores the lethal degree impact a gun holds, the prevalence of guns, the attached impulse severity affect, the assault escalation aspect, etc., etc., etc. The relevant stats are the ones you categorically refuse to accept... those that are directly related to guns!
It also ignores the fact that Australia had a very similar gun policy (very liberal) until 1997, when a mass murder so shocked the nation that they passed rigid, Canadian-style gun control. Since then the homicide rate has dropped by over 50%
So, yeah, banning guns won't completely stop homicide. But that ain't the point. Banning guns will stop a lot of homicides (and suicides, and accidents).
I agree that you should be 20 times more critical about residential swimming pools, but you haven't been.
But don't stop at banning guns, you need to give kitchen Knives and residential swimming pools a serious look.
one might connect the two together and declare a new cause and affect relationship. but in reality that would only be a cause and affect that is valid in Australia. We didn't see any huge change in homicide rates in Canada.
Interestingly enough in Australiao, I hear that the number of firearms has since increased back to it's original numbers(not to be confused with the original per capita rates because the country has gotten bigger),
But this time through proper background checks, their homicide rates did NOT go up. Again, this kinda shoots a big whole into the theory that restricting ownership to lawful citizens is the largest driving factor to homicide rates.
Now.....don't you go and confuse the gullible with facts.........................for shame....
LADDERS. Everyone forgets the damm ladders. We even have to take courses on ladder safety because they are so dangerous.