|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Fallacies.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 at 09:44:06 pm EST (Viewed 301 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Fallacies.
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 at 01:12:29 pm EST (Viewed 297 times)
Okay, first of all, what's your source for this?
Quote:Again, 1 in 5 hospital shootings occur when someone takes the gun from an armed guard so these wouldn't happen in the first place had a gun not been present.
It's a study covering 2000-2011 and published in the journal, Annals of Emergency Medicine:
Quote:Secondly, how often do hospitals have mass shootings?
This isn't about mass shootings per se, just any shooting in hospitals.
Quote:The other thing that you said was the word STOLEN, as in illegal!
Your concern with intention has nothing to do with the ultimate toll guns take on the population, intended or not. If people get into a heated argument, it's far better to have no gun present than to have guns present.
Quote:There's also no implication as to whether or not the shootings would have happened if armed guards were there or not. We do know that mass shooters almost always target places WITHOUT guns. Also, one in 5 is not a majority.
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? 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.
Quote:It's not at all irrelevant, because one reason people are resistant about gun restrictions is BECAUSE of the Second Amendment! Comparing our country to others if other countries don't have a Bill Of Rights (The big Elephant in the room.) is meaningless. Besides, a lot of violence is committed by means aside from guns, guns just get most of the media attention and are politicized.
Because guns cause the most death! They are far more lethal. For homicides, guns cause nearly 8 times as many deaths as knives. That means guns should be a priority if you want to reduce homicides, not knives.
Quote:Where is your proof that the guns in Washington that are being used in crimes are coming from outside the area? In Chicago and Detroit, that MIGHT be true, but Washington has had bans on guns for a looooong time, and the crime rates there DON'T go down (But they do in other states. ).
You keep saying things that are just wrong. Since the mid-90s, the homicide rate has been dropping drastically in D.C.
Quote:Also, there are states out there (Mostly southern states.)that are big hunting states and have very lax gun laws but have very low crime or murder rates. And yes, if bans have been removed due to their ineffectiveness or have been ruled unconstitutional, that kind of does point to a ban being ineffective. There's also the black market, so even if guns were banned (Not going to happen anytime soon.), it will just open the black market more and make them more money.
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.
There have been certain guns that have been banned in the past, very few murders are committed with an automatic weapon anyway. If you want to ban CERTAIN kind of weapons, that's different. I believe that some are already banned.
Quote:Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? Automatic weapons are guns. If not, why not?
You didn't answer my question. Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? If not, why not?
You're taking about gun deaths and lumping everything into one (A fallacy.), ignoring suicides and self-defense. All of those other things also cause a lot of deaths, nobody is arguing that people can't handle knives because there are people out there who stab other people or cut themselves. Also, guns are regulated (No, there is no "Gun-show loophole. They have to do background checks there AND online transactions. PRIVATE sales are different!), you can't sell to convicted felons, you have to conduct background checks, you can't sell to people who got dishonorably discharged, etc. It's perfectly okay if you want guns banned, but let's not fall into propaganda or distortions or emotional rhetoric here.
Quote:30,000+ gun deaths a year obviously prove that Americans cannot responsibly handle guns. Knives, sleeping pills, and cell phones don't cause nearly as many deaths as guns. Cars almost cause as many deaths but cars are heavily regulated. Guns are not. Guns should be.
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?
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|