Gun control working!

[Pop23]

It's the statistic that should cause pause, not the number.

Say WHAA??

OMG, look! There was like a 100% increase from 1999 to 2001 where they had a whopping 0.185 firearm homicides PER 100,000 PEOPLE! Years after "the gun ban"! Holy crap that's a significant fractional person increase!

In other news, again, thanks to all your insufferably innumerate gun stroking, Republicans increasingly favor gun control. Please continue! Change nothing! By the way, this looks like the actual me:

Intimidating? DEAL WITH IT.

The dudes looking at you. He's my buddy!

You seem to be advocating wanting a 44% increase in the homicide rate in the United States!

Or do you prefer the historically high Rape rate in Australia since their ban has been put in place?

The Murderers and Rapists appreciate you're support

 

[Pop23]

That you think bad people intent on killing others will be deterred by yet another gun law is laughable. That you're okay allowing

More non sequitur blaa, blaa, blaa... That you rubes never think up any new material is what's truly laughable,... yet sad in a pathetic sort of way...

Look in the mirror lately?

No, I don't blame ya

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Murderers and Rapists appreciate you're support

Oh, is that who reads this forum? No wonder!

 

[Pop23]

The Murderers and Rapists appreciate you're support

Oh, is that who reads this forum? No wonder!

Do you? Can't they read? No access to the interwebs?

You really are a numbnuts.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He's my buddy!

Funny! You sure?

"I don't see myself as conservative," Eastwood has stated, while noting in the same breath that he is not an "ultra-leftist," either.[367] At times, he has supported Democrats in California, including Senator Dianne Feinstein in 1994,[368][369][370] liberal United States House of Representatives member Sam Farr in 2002,[371] and Governor Gray Davis, whom he voted for in 1998 and 2002 and hosted pricey fundraisers for in 2002 and 2003.[372]

A self-professed "liberal on civil rights,"[360] Eastwood has stated that he is pro-choice on abortion.[366] He has endorsed same-sex marriage[367][373][374] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[375]

In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and suggested that they would make for a worthwhile presidential ticket.[376] In 1999, Eastwood stated, "I guess I was a social liberal and fiscal conservative before it became fashionable."[377] Ten years later, in 2009, Eastwood said that he was now a registered Libertarian.[378]

Despite being heavily associated with firearms in his Westerns and police movies, Eastwood has publicly endorsed gun control since at least 1973. In the April 24, 1973, edition of The Washington Post, the star said, "I'm for gun legislation myself. I don't hunt."[379] Two years later, in 1975, Eastwood told People magazine that he favors "gun control to some degree."[380] About a year later, Eastwood remarked that "All guns should be registered. I don't think legitimate gun owners would mind that kind of legislation. Right now the furor against a gun law is by gun owners who are overreacting. They're worried that all guns are going to be recalled. It's impossible to take guns out of circulation, and that's why firearms should be registered and mail-order delivery of guns halted."[381] In 1993, he noted that he "...was always a backer" of the Brady Bill, with its federally mandated waiting period.[382] In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that "my interview with Eastwood will air on 'Larry King Weekend' ... I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. 'Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?' he said."[383]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oh darn, Pops. May have to change your avatar. Reading: never really your strong suit, eh?

 

[Pop23]

Oh darn, Pops. May have to change your avatar. Reading: never really your strong suit, eh?

He's still not nearly as whacked out about it as you. Making him far closer to me, than you.

OUCH dude, that's gotta hurt!

 

[Grumblenuts]

He's still not nearly as whacked out about it as you.

Evidence? We're exactly the same on the issue, FAICT. That you clearly had no clue until now, that's what's gotta hurt. Try turning off that tube once in a while. Curl up under a light with a good book. Go outside and enjoy some fresh air...

 

[asaratis]

Guns are just a means.

No, guns make it super easy and do far more damage much faster. You know it. Everyone knows it. Wake up. Stop kidding yourself.

Ask the truck driver in nice France about the speed he achieved in taking out 80

Killers kill, they don’t give a damn

As I sit in the second floor of this building here I have no worries of trucks. Don't have it on my boat either. Trucks are very limited and easy to defend, guns aren't.

Sure....trucks are easy to stop...after they kill 80 or so people and maim scores more. Or you could always comandeer another truck, chase the killer's truck (likely killing more people as you do it) and crash into the killer's truck. Or you could just shoot the driver with your firearm.

Guns are easily defended against by other guns....from a distance.

 

[Pop23]

He's still not nearly as whacked out about it as you.

Evidence? We're exactly the same on the issue, FAICT. That you clearly had no clue until now, that's what's gotta hurt. Try turning off that tube once in a while. Curl up under a light with a good book. Go outside and enjoy some fresh air...

Here are a few more facts. Take away suicide and Gang related killings? We are talking few deaths per year in comparisson:

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective

There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (less than 1,000). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths. Sometimes the 32,000 and 11,000 figures are used interchangeably by gun control advocates. Clearly, the 32,000 figure is a far more dramatic number and is often used for impact. These numbers are also regularly compared to other countries' gun statistics. But are they true? Here, we will examine some of the most common gun control arguments used and put those figures into perspective.


Gang Violence Driving Force of Gun Violence
To hear gun control advocates speak, one would be led to believe that gun violence is a widespread problem whereby the mere existence of a gun is as much a problem as the person who intends to wield it. But the reality is that gun homicides are overwhelmingly tied to gang violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.

 

[Rustic]

Guns are just a means.

No, guns make it super easy and do far more damage much faster. You know it. Everyone knows it. Wake up. Stop kidding yourself.

Dip shit, People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people most people understand that and know that in grade school.
Terrorists much prefer bombs and vehicles

Oh, another non sequitur.. shocking! Here son, hold on tight as I lead you to coherence:

Guns make it super easy [for people to kill people] and do far more damage much faster. You know it. Everyone knows it. Wake up. Stop kidding yourself.

You sound like a real nut. Quick, a bunch people have crowded around you and they're really pissing you off now. You have a knife, semi tractor, and an AR-15 with tons of ammo. Which do you choose?

Lol
Terrorists in the Middle East, much prefer bombs over any firearms. They much more effective for creating terror. And they have access to anything they what... they much prefer bombs and vehicles over firearms.
The point is crazy people whatever is accessible, sporting rifles like the ar15 are just sporting rifles. Shit for brains...
In Europe they said banning guns would eliminate violent crime.... they were wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Lol
Terrorists in the Middle East, much prefer bombs over any firearms.

Hahaha! So worn to death! Follows from absolutely nothing! Tangential, illogical, pointless! Perfect!
U.S. Army soldiers prefer bombs at times, hahahahaa!
My GOD, did someone say kids are killing each other in schools?
Loons! Criminals! Terrorists! Lock 'em up! Throw away the key! Kill 'em! Mow 'em down!
Yeah, a real laugh riot.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Terrorists in the Middle East, much prefer bombs over any firearms.

Hahaha! So worn to death! Follows from absolutely nothing! Tangential, illogical, pointless! Perfect!
U.S. Army soldiers prefer bombs at times, hahahahaa!
My GOD, did someone say kids are killing each other in schools?
Loons! Criminals! Terrorists! Lock 'em up! Throw away the key! Kill 'em! Mow 'em down!
Yeah, a real laugh riot.

People will use whatever is accessible, more frivolous gun laws will not save a single soul

 

[sakinago]

Look no further than London, England, where civilian firearm ownership is de facto banned. Heck, their dear leader had good common sense to ban not only firearms, but sharp, pointy objects as well.

Sorry, you just can't argue the good results, right?

Through March of 2018:

• The murder rate is up 44 percent over the last twelve months
• Violent crime is up 33% over the preceding twelve months
• Home robbery is also up, by a third
• Rape is up 18 percent

Guess those 100lb English ladies are finding the notion of fighting off a 250lb rapist with their fists to be a bit of a sticky wicket???

But hey, but at least there's no gun or knife crime, right?

• Knife crime up 21 percent
• Shootings up 23 percent from the previous year
• More

Hmm...

Well, we all know the only reason London sees this crime is because of all the lax gun laws in nearly Indiana...

Oh, wait. Crap. Never mind.

Hmms, so before last year England didn't have strict gun control? Your stats, which you didn't source btw all speak about an increase this year. How does that help your argument?

Actually London is a great example of gun control not working. Their gun crime doubled within a decade after banning guns.

And the point of this post was that London banning knives proves the very common talking point that pro 2nd A people have been making for years which is, “even if you erase all guns from existence, it doesn’t eliminate crime or murder that people are going to find another way to commit, are you going ban knives too?” (Which the answer to banning knives was always no because that’s just silly...up until now). Now that they have banned knives, surprise surprise, crime is up.

Taking guns out of the hands of good people only gives criminals the advantage who prey on weaker targets. Rhonda rousy, despite being a great fighter and able to kick 90% of males asses hand to hand is going to be SOL going up against a guy with 100 pounds on her and a knife or a bat. Imagine a regular old 130 lb girl going up against a 240 lb guy with a knife...she’s defenseless. But, guns are an equalizer, you don’t need superior strength or athleticism to fire one. Knives on the other hand, if you’re going up against someone stronger, faster, etc, the scales are wildly tipped out of your favor.

 

[bgrouse]

The correlation works like this: stupid people tend to make bad financial decisions and bad criminal decisions, so they end up poor and/or imprisoned. Being stupid, negroes are overrepresented in both, hence the correlation.

My, such blatant racism! How REVOLTING!

Got a problem with it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Got a problem with it?

Yes.

Who's with me??

 

[Confounding]

Got a problem with it?

Yes.

Who's with me??

I don't get offended easily.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't get offended easily.

Not a matter of personal offense. If not in this instance, when do you confront such blatantly racist commentary? Whether it hurts us personally is neither here nor there. We both know it targets and hurts many by design. Like guns designed specifically to kill people as quickly, efficiently, and brutally as possible. Always let it slide and one day find yourself oddly labelled "Damaged Collateral" in the disposables bin.

 

[eflatminor]

That you think bad people intent on killing others will be deterred by yet another gun law is laughable. That you're okay allowing

More non sequitur blaa, blaa, blaa... That you rubes never think up any new material is what's truly laughable,... yet sad in a pathetic sort of way...

Actually, not a logical fallacy, but good try.

Care to address the point or just more deflection?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ha ha, project much? I did, in fact, "address the point" tersely and squarely. Clearly not understandably to you though. So I'll expand a bit for you just this once:

Starting with "That you think" - not a logical fallacy, eh? Stuffing words into my mouth to go on and argue with yourself about? Yes son, that's textbook being a fallacious (strawman erecting) dickhead right out of the starting gate.

Next, "bad people intent on killing others" - Jesus, not only does this garbage fail to connect with anything I actually said (thus coming-from-nowhere / "non sequitur" fallacy), it's ancient NRA playbook (BORING!) gobbledygook. "Bad people" - wtf is that? Like it or not, we are a nation of laws here. Prime directive - Innocent until proven guilty! You put cart before horse with a vengeance. Yep, another fallacy. Whether you presume a portion of "people" simply "bad" or judge them "bad" due to some specific "intent" that you've imagined them having - bad or good - intent alone is not a crime (not involving physical injury at least). It's a necessary precursor to prove someone guilty of a crime (or "bad" if you insist). Point being, "bad" in such a case begs to be established, never used a priori. The same applies when substituting "criminals" is such context. Tacking on "intent on killing others" is being more specific about the "bad", otherwise the same. A tautology. The ancient "Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" meme as well.

Next, "will be deterred"(by yet another gun law) - No, I've considered violent crime prevention and reduction. I'd never waste my time trying to convince someone I actually know to be a violent criminal of anything. First I'd likely run or sneak away, then maybe call the police depending on the circumstances. A great deal more senseless death and injury could easily be prevented by further strategically limiting easy access to particular firearms and ammo. And I'm for far fewer, easily enforced, equitable, sensible laws, not more. For instance, carrying firearms conceivably "deters" some people from committing violent crimes given they're not concealed. Concealing them "deters" nothing. This sort of logic should be incorporated into pertinent law. All such law should be crafted utmost in the interests of providing for adequate public health and safety, not to "serve & protect" private (special) interests.

"That you're okay allowing" - again, follows from nothing but the noises in your head. Obviously. Earns no response. eta, In fact, what it earns is utterly ignoring anything that follows