If Guns Kill People...

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah really strict gun laws do not stop the killing one bit

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; and, it conforms to the law of large numbers. Guys usually have to go along with it, for that reason alone.

Wrong as usual.

Chicago has "strict gun laws". Chicago also has, a lot of guns.

So?

I can just as easily say strict gun laws cause gun violence. But unlike you I know that it's not that simple

 

[danielpalos]

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does; and, it conforms to the law of large numbers. Guys usually have to go along with it, for that reason alone.

Wrong as usual.

Chicago has "strict gun laws". Chicago also has, a lot of guns.

So?

I can just as easily say strict gun laws cause gun violence. But unlike you I know that it's not that simple

Why not?

socialism merely requires, social morals for free. how much gun violence among the Religious?

 

[frigidweirdo]

That seems to be the case in Chicago.

Yeah really strict gun laws do not stop the killing one bit

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah really strict gun laws do not stop the killing one bit

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

 

[danielpalos]

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

are commandments from a God, also worthless?

 

[Rustic]

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

are commandments from a God, also worthless?

The federal government is certainly no God, they are just a bunch of politically correct people that could not make it in the real world, at a real job.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

are commandments from a God, also worthless?

Why do you ask me that?

Oh wait I know. You have me labeled in your tiny mind that I am "right wing" which must mean I am a republican which must mean I am religious.

Don't let your head explode but I am an atheist. I couldn't care less about gays getting married, or women having abortions.

Now call your mommy in to clean up the mess your exploding brain caused, although since you brain is so small it won't be that much of a mess so just let the dog lick it up

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

are commandments from a God, also worthless?

Why do you ask me that?

Oh wait I know. You have me labeled in your tiny mind that I am "right wing" which must mean I am a republican which must mean I am religious.

Don't let your head explode but I am an atheist. I couldn't care less about gays getting married, or women having abortions.

Now call your mommy in to clean up the mess your exploding brain caused, although since you brain is so small it won't be that much of a mess so just let the dog lick it up

It is about morals. The common law may be indistinguishable from morality, to some.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

are commandments from a God, also worthless?

Why do you ask me that?

Oh wait I know. You have me labeled in your tiny mind that I am "right wing" which must mean I am a republican which must mean I am religious.

Don't let your head explode but I am an atheist. I couldn't care less about gays getting married, or women having abortions.

Now call your mommy in to clean up the mess your exploding brain caused, although since you brain is so small it won't be that much of a mess so just let the dog lick it up

It is about morals. The common law may be indistinguishable from morality, to some.

And this has what to do with the fact that gun controls do not lower murder or crime rates?

 

[Weatherman2020]

...Then how in the HELL does anyone leave a gun show alive? Hmm? Can any of you liberal gungrabbers explain this?

I left my loaded rifle by the front door. UPS, mailman and even a Mormon came to the front door and nothing happened.
I have the laziest rifle on earth.

 

[iceberg]

Yeah really strict gun laws do not stop the killing one bit

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

then great. show me the unbiased studies out there that can correlate between specific laws being passed or controls enacted that reduced deaths by guns.

i'll wait.

for a long long time.

over there. >>>>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

There's no evidence to support a lot of things. When I grew up there was no evidence to support the fact that bees had the ability to fly. But we knew they could fly.

The problem with your statistics is they're statistics. A gun ban means what? In the UK a gun ban would mean not very much. After the Dunblaine Massacre there was a gun ban, but most people wouldn't have noticed the difference. You're also dealing with many different things happening, and unless you actually look at the different things and can pin point those, then making a simple analysis with minimal information isn't going to get you anywhere. But there's exactly where you want to go.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

There's no evidence to support a lot of things. When I grew up there was no evidence to support the fact that bees had the ability to fly. But we knew they could fly.

The problem with your statistics is they're statistics. A gun ban means what? In the UK a gun ban would mean not very much. After the Dunblaine Massacre there was a gun ban, but most people wouldn't have noticed the difference. You're also dealing with many different things happening, and unless you actually look at the different things and can pin point those, then making a simple analysis with minimal information isn't going to get you anywhere. But there's exactly where you want to go.

Actually the physics of flight were figured out before we had the ability to build the components needed

And yes they are statistics but based on actual results.
You tell me gun laws will reduce the murder rate.

I show you where gun laws have been passed with the intention of reducing murder rates but the numbers tell us they don't and now you say that's just statistics. Well you using another country's lower murder rate is just statistics as well.

My position is and always has been that there are other variables than just guns or gun laws that drive murder and crime more than either gun or gun laws do. As to what they are who knows I'll leave that to the sociologists to figure out

 

[iceberg]

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

what are you basing that off of? your own conjecture?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

There's no evidence to support a lot of things. When I grew up there was no evidence to support the fact that bees had the ability to fly. But we knew they could fly.

The problem with your statistics is they're statistics. A gun ban means what? In the UK a gun ban would mean not very much. After the Dunblaine Massacre there was a gun ban, but most people wouldn't have noticed the difference. You're also dealing with many different things happening, and unless you actually look at the different things and can pin point those, then making a simple analysis with minimal information isn't going to get you anywhere. But there's exactly where you want to go.

Actually the physics of flight were figured out before we had the ability to build the components needed

And yes they are statistics but based on actual results.
You tell me gun laws will reduce the murder rate.

I show you where gun laws have been passed with the intention of reducing murder rates but the numbers tell us they don't and now you say that's just statistics. Well you using another country's lower murder rate is just statistics as well.

My position is and always has been that there are other variables than just guns or gun laws that drive murder and crime more than either gun or gun laws do. As to what they are who knows I'll leave that to the sociologists to figure out

No, I didn't tell you guns laws WILL reduce the murder rate at all. A gun law doesn't do anything unless it's enforced, and the type of law will decide whether it'd have any impact at all.

I mean, saying that people must have a sticker of a naked lady on their gun could be considered to be gun control, and no matter how much you enforce it, it isn't going to reduce murders.

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society. Even then in the US you have the problems of many guns already in society.

Gun bans in cities in the US won't have much impact because guns are able to get in from outside. Yes, it's gun control, but there isn't much chance to actually control.

You keep going on about gun control like all gun control is the same. You can show examples of where gun control has failed. Great. I can show examples of where hearts have failed. Does this mean we shouldn't use hearts?

Your position is that this is a complex issue, and you keep using simple statistics to try and explain a complex problem that you really don't want to get to the bottom of, because you want to keep the guns in society and keep the killing up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

There's no evidence to support a lot of things. When I grew up there was no evidence to support the fact that bees had the ability to fly. But we knew they could fly.

The problem with your statistics is they're statistics. A gun ban means what? In the UK a gun ban would mean not very much. After the Dunblaine Massacre there was a gun ban, but most people wouldn't have noticed the difference. You're also dealing with many different things happening, and unless you actually look at the different things and can pin point those, then making a simple analysis with minimal information isn't going to get you anywhere. But there's exactly where you want to go.

Actually the physics of flight were figured out before we had the ability to build the components needed

And yes they are statistics but based on actual results.
You tell me gun laws will reduce the murder rate.

I show you where gun laws have been passed with the intention of reducing murder rates but the numbers tell us they don't and now you say that's just statistics. Well you using another country's lower murder rate is just statistics as well.

My position is and always has been that there are other variables than just guns or gun laws that drive murder and crime more than either gun or gun laws do. As to what they are who knows I'll leave that to the sociologists to figure out

No, I didn't tell you guns laws WILL reduce the murder rate at all. A gun law doesn't do anything unless it's enforced, and the type of law will decide whether it'd have any impact at all.

I mean, saying that people must have a sticker of a naked lady on their gun could be considered to be gun control, and no matter how much you enforce it, it isn't going to reduce murders.

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society. Even then in the US you have the problems of many guns already in society.

Gun bans in cities in the US won't have much impact because guns are able to get in from outside. Yes, it's gun control, but there isn't much chance to actually control.

You keep going on about gun control like all gun control is the same. You can show examples of where gun control has failed. Great. I can show examples of where hearts have failed. Does this mean we shouldn't use hearts?

Your position is that this is a complex issue, and you keep using simple statistics to try and explain a complex problem that you really don't want to get to the bottom of, because you want to keep the guns in society and keep the killing up.

The number of guns has no effect on the killing.

No matter how you try to couch your premise at the core you always come back to the disproved argument that more guns equals more crime.

 

[sealybobo]

...Then how in the HELL does anyone leave a gun show alive? Hmm? Can any of you liberal gungrabbers explain this?

My cousin just shot his roommate in the face. How did I survive? Clearly the gun liked me better than his roommate.

Here's the kicker. He's a felon. He is so screwed

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

There's no evidence to support a lot of things. When I grew up there was no evidence to support the fact that bees had the ability to fly. But we knew they could fly.

The problem with your statistics is they're statistics. A gun ban means what? In the UK a gun ban would mean not very much. After the Dunblaine Massacre there was a gun ban, but most people wouldn't have noticed the difference. You're also dealing with many different things happening, and unless you actually look at the different things and can pin point those, then making a simple analysis with minimal information isn't going to get you anywhere. But there's exactly where you want to go.

Actually the physics of flight were figured out before we had the ability to build the components needed

And yes they are statistics but based on actual results.
You tell me gun laws will reduce the murder rate.

I show you where gun laws have been passed with the intention of reducing murder rates but the numbers tell us they don't and now you say that's just statistics. Well you using another country's lower murder rate is just statistics as well.

My position is and always has been that there are other variables than just guns or gun laws that drive murder and crime more than either gun or gun laws do. As to what they are who knows I'll leave that to the sociologists to figure out

No, I didn't tell you guns laws WILL reduce the murder rate at all. A gun law doesn't do anything unless it's enforced, and the type of law will decide whether it'd have any impact at all.

I mean, saying that people must have a sticker of a naked lady on their gun could be considered to be gun control, and no matter how much you enforce it, it isn't going to reduce murders.

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society. Even then in the US you have the problems of many guns already in society.

Gun bans in cities in the US won't have much impact because guns are able to get in from outside. Yes, it's gun control, but there isn't much chance to actually control.

You keep going on about gun control like all gun control is the same. You can show examples of where gun control has failed. Great. I can show examples of where hearts have failed. Does this mean we shouldn't use hearts?

Your position is that this is a complex issue, and you keep using simple statistics to try and explain a complex problem that you really don't want to get to the bottom of, because you want to keep the guns in society and keep the killing up.

The number of guns has no effect on the killing.

No matter how you try to couch your premise at the core you always come back to the disproved argument that more guns equals more crime.

No, it doesn't.

It's not the number of guns, it's the ease of availability of guns that is the problem. Now, the number of guns in the US reflects the ease of availability of guns.

My argument isn't that more guns equal more crime though, is it?