Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Comicguy1

Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,275
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,621
Subj: Re: You're Going Backwards Now.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 at 04:24:13 pm EST (Viewed 250 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Somewhat Better.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 at 01:23:37 pm EST (Viewed 227 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
     Interesting, but that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that someone can steal a gun and murder someone.


It proves that if there were fewer guns, it would happen fewer times.


    Quote:
    Shootings in hospitals don't occur regularly, and hospitals are well guarded (For the most part.). 


The study found 154 shootings in hospitals over 11 years. That's not frequent, but an average of 14 times a year isn't meager either.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You think a shooting that happens when someone unarmed takes a weapon off someone who is armed has to happen most of the time in order for that to be a serious consideration when arming people in the first place?
    Yes, because this relates to armed guards and cops and the like. They were trained for this, and you're talking about STEALING weapons. People steal and hot wire cars too, but that shouldn't have anything to do with car regulations, no one is trying to restrict OTHER people from driving because that stuff happens.


Sure, people are restricted from driving when they are drunk. Not all drunk people crash into or kill other people and they certainly for the most part don't intend to, but the law does indeed keep such people from cars while they are in that state of inebriation.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      That's baloney. Your point is that more guns make more people safer. I'm saying that even when taking into account when guns deter violence, when you take accidents, suicides, etc. into account, statistically overall the presence of guns make people less safe In other words, the likelihood of your own gun killing you or someone else in your family for ANY reason is much greater than the likelihood of you using that gun in self defense in a way that would have saved you or a family member.
    I didn't say that more guns make us safer, I'm saying that MOST gun owners are responsible and don't use their guns to commit violence or engage in criminal actions. And there is a BIG difference when factoring in self-defense, justifiable homicides and shootings (Some of them by cops.) and suicides. Suicide is a bad thing (In most cases.), but it's not a crime and it's a persons choice. Many times people can be driven away from suicide, sometimes they can not. I'm not judging any suicide victim at all, but you have to take them into account when talking about how guns are bad and evil.


The truth is, people commit suicide more often if the means are readily available to them and the vast majority of people don't go out of their way to commit suicide. Hence, if a gun is unavailable to them, they are far less likely to seek out an alternative means of suicide. Less gun ownership then would drastically decrease the number of suicides:

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9126891/gun-suicide-rate


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You keep saying things that are just wrong. Since the mid-90s, the homicide rate has been dropping drastically in D.C.
    Not quite, and this is relating to the handgun ban. Also, eliminating the ban did NOT cause an increase in crime. AT THE TIME when the gun ban was passed, murder and violence went up.


You're getting cause and correlation confused. The gun ban was instituted because there was so much gun violence. It was already going up, and obviously the ban couldn't stop all the guns that were already out there so you shouldn't act like the gun ban was ever going to massively decrease gun violence.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Bans aren't removed because they are ineffective but because Republicans are doing the bidding of the NRA. Again, I'm not calling for a ban on all guns, just much heavier regulation like the rest of the industrialized world.
    Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to blame this on the Republicans. Thanks for jumping the gun. First of all, there are DEMOCRATS who are members of The NRA. There are also a fair number of  Democrats who have voted against gun control laws and regulations, and even a few that voted against The Brady Bill (Which was proposed by Reagan, not a Democrat.). And yes, the Assault Weapons ban didn't have much of an effect. It might have had a SLIGHT reduction, but Assault Weapons are very rarely used anyway. It's worth noting that Columbine still happened even when the ban was in effect.


Don't be obtuse. Pointing out that a few Democrats vote with the NRA does not discount that Republicans overwhelmingly do so to the point of being against even the most sensible gun regulations. Trump overturned an Obama rule to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill! Again, the assault weapons ban didn't destroy all of the thousands of assault weapons already out there, so it was never going to erase gun violence with them. It also had loopholes that let people get around it. But based on a Brady Center study, the ban nevertheless reduced the number of criminal usages of assault weapons from 4.82% to 1.61% That's a significant two-thirds decrease.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You didn't answer my question. Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? If not, why not?
    There are certain weapons that are banned (Like Machine guns and Military weapons.) that should stay banned. Assault weapons aren't used that often, and the ban that they HAD didn't show much of an effect. Assault weapons are different from automatic weapons, though. Many are just used for hunting, rifles aren't used often in crimes.


So if you agree that at some level of potency, guns should be banned from civilian use, it's really only a discussion of what level that should be, not that guns shouldn't be banned because you just agreed that some should.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Guns are minimally regulated and the NRA fights even the most sensible regulations. So tell me, why can every other industrialized country on average have one twentieth of the rate of gun deaths as the United States? What are they doing that we aren't?
    Again, guns are not minimally regulated.  Yes, there can be some more regulations (Notably with raising the age to purchase.) , but not just anyone can purchase one. Now, people CAN (And do.) get them illegally, but that's true of anything (ESPECIALLY street drugs! And minors can still be given underage alcohol or cigarettes through their parents or other people, also illegal.), and there can be accessory there. Yes, the NRA are a problem (Maybe a big one.), but it goes beyond them. Another problem is misinformation, distortions, lies and propaganda that we get from all sides about guns. And look, if you want a gun ban, that's fine, but just come out and say it. 


I don't want a flat-out gun ban, but you still have answered my question. What's the biggest factor that makes gun deaths on average 20 times higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries? Do you deny that it's because the United States has nearly half of the civilian-owned guns in the world despite having less than 5% of the world's population?

It proves that if there were fewer guns, it would happen fewer times.>

You're going backwards with this. You keep on saying fewer guns even when speaking about lawmen and trained officers who have guards. People who are not regular civilians.

The study found 154 shootings in hospitals over 11 years. That's not frequent, but an average of 14 times a year isn't meager either.>

Considering how many hospitals there are, that's pretty much nonexistent.

Sure, people are restricted from driving when they are drunk. Not all drunk people crash into or kill other people and they certainly for the most part don't intend to, but the law does indeed keep such people from cars while they are in that state of inebriation.>

That's not what I meant. You were talking about how guns should be restricted because people can steal them, I said that people don't argue or try to restrict people from driving cars because cars get hot wired. Also, guns are restricted as well. You can't sell a gun to a convicted felon, an Illegal alien, someone who was dishonorably discharged, minors, people who you know are going to use it for a criminal act, etc.

The truth is, people commit suicide more often if the means are readily available to them and the vast majority of people don't go out of their way to commit suicide. Hence, if a gun is unavailable to them, they are far less likely to seek out an alternative means of suicide>

Yes, if a gun is available people can act on impulse more. Still, suicide is a personal choice and is not a crime. And again, pills are usually the more common method (Among women, anyway.), guns are just more lethal and definitive. And again, suicide is not so black and white. The elderly are at a greater risk for suicide. I highly doubt that many people would frown upon an elderly person who commits suicide because they don't want to suffer from a degenerative disease or Dementia or the like.

The gun ban was instituted because there was so much gun violence. It was already going up, and obviously the ban couldn't stop all the guns that were already out there so you shouldn't act like the gun ban was ever going to massively decrease gun violence.>

But since the gun ban passed, the murder rate actually INCREASED even while the general murder rate across the US has decreased.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYPhCmXB-f8



Don't be obtuse. Pointing out that a few Democrats vote with the NRA does not discount that Republicans overwhelmingly do so to the point of being against even the most sensible gun regulations.>

I was mostly referring to the fact that there are Democrats who are MEMBERS of the NRA. I don't think that anyone thinks that the NRA DOESN'T have too strong of a hold on our politicians (So does Wall Street.), and that there can be sensible gun regulations. Not all gun laws and regulations are good, hence why Democrats have not always voted for. There have been Republicans who have voted for many gun laws as well. The Brady Bill was implemented by Reagan.

Trump overturned an Obama rule to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.>

This one reaches into civil rights violations and infringement. Being mentally ill is not a crime, and most people with mental illness are not more violent than the average person. Also, if we go by The DSM (Which I actually own.), caffeine disorder is listed as a diagnosis. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Again, the assault weapons ban didn't destroy all of the thousands of assault weapons already out there, so it was never going to erase gun violence with them. It also had loopholes that let people get around it. But based on a Brady Center study, the ban nevertheless reduced the number of criminal usages of assault weapons from 4.82% to 1.61% That's a significant two-thirds decrease.>

The Brady Center tends to skew research to suit their agenda, but there has been a lot of research that goes over that study and debunks it. I'll get you a link later, but the problem is that there's no strict definition of an Assault weapon. Most of the research stated that it had a MINIMUM effect, but that it MIGHT have had somewhat more of an effect if it didn't get overturned. I'll link you to the study that discusses the Brady Bill research, but for the Assault Ban:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN4IFhkyvHE



So if you agree that at some level of potency, guns should be banned from civilian use, it's really only a discussion of what level that should be, not that guns shouldn't be banned because you just agreed that some should.>

MILITARY weapons are banned from civilian use. That's been in play for a long time, that really hasn't been much of a factor. Assault weapons can be used to classify various guns, and there's no clear definition of an assault weapon. AR's are often used for hunting, so a ban on that wouldn't be very effective. The problem is keeping guns out of the WRONG hands, because most gun crime is being committed by CRIMINALS! You're also arguing for less gun ownership and saying how bad guns are, which is different than restrictions on guns. Also, bans in general don't seem to work. It didn't work for alcohol or drugs (In fat, it's made the drug situation a lot WORSE and led to our prisons being overcrowded.).

I don't want a flat-out gun ban, but you still have answered my question.>

Yes, I did!



What's the biggest factor that makes gun deaths on average 20 times higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries>

You do realize that other countries have had many other mass shootings and killings, don't you?








Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software