Attention, gun control supporters:

[The Rabbi]

So the rest of the country outside of those areas are free of gun violence and are safer than any other place on the planet? Is that your claim?

LOL. Hack.

Safer than those "gun-free" zones you see everywhere.

Gun Free Zones are a joke. Just like smoking sections in an airplane.

Yup, exactly the same. Surely.

Does it hurt to be this stupid in the morning?

 

[RDD_1210]

It's hard to compete with a country that has.....8 million people, and ours that has 300+ million people. That's why I used a per capita source to give some perspective.

I'm also talking per capita, as per my link. We have FAR more gun ownership per capita than any other nation on the planet. Why are we not FAR safer?

Because increased gun ownership does not equal increased safety.

You're right. There is no one to one correspondence. Was that some kind of point you are trying to make? Because if so it backfired as the converse is also true: fewer guns does not correspond to less crime.

That was my original point from December that Rottweiler felt the need to dig up. Yes.

To your other point, I can more easily make the case that fewer guns does equal more safety than someone could make the argument that more guns equals more safety.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moving the goal posts? I'm pretty sure I specified the entire nation in my original question. You decided to focus on three specific areas.

I'll say it again, why isn't our nation the safest on the planet with all the guns we have. Not one of you selfish gun lovers can answer that.

The fact is, the most gun violence occurs where guns are restricted and the least amount of gun violence occurs where guns are permitted to be carried both open and concealed.

Link?

Are you too lazy to do your own research?

 

[DiamondDave]

I never said we were the most dangerous. I just asked why we aren't the safest. Big difference. Please frame your response around what I asked.

It's hard to compete with a country that has.....8 million people, and ours that has 300+ million people. That's why I used a per capita source to give some perspective.

I'm also talking per capita, as per my link. We have FAR more gun ownership per capita than any other nation on the planet. Why are we not FAR safer?

Because increased gun ownership does not equal increased safety.

Except you are making the wrong comparison.. not safer compared to some place like Switzerland or Prance... Safer compared to what we would be without the right to own firearms for our own protection, etc...

We are a violent culture.. our country was born and raised in violence.. but taking the weaponry away from the law abiding who would use it for sport, protection, etc WILL NOT MAKE IT SAFER

 

[Meister]

I never said we were the least safe. I am questioning the logic that more guns equals more safety. We are not the least safe, but we are certainly not the safest and we have more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world.

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is that? Perhaps more guns does not equal more safety.

Why is that? It's called free will, RDD. We all could have a tank in our yard and there still would be violence....that will never change.


Perhaps more guns does not equal more safety?
Please look at the link I provided in the post right above yours. That article should put some perspective into your statement.

Then why don't other first world nations have the level of gun violence that we have? They don't have free will?

Yes, there will always be violence no matter where you go, but to claim that increasing the prevalence of guns increases the level of safety has been shown to be false. There is no relationship between increased gun ownership and increased safety.

First you need to be more specific as to first world nations, China, Brazil, Russia?

Second paragraph of yours sounds like another opinion of yours and you have shown not to look at my aricle in the source I provided.
Guns Save Lives

Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. 1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. 2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm also talking per capita, as per my link. We have FAR more gun ownership per capita than any other nation on the planet. Why are we not FAR safer?

Because increased gun ownership does not equal increased safety.

You're right. There is no one to one correspondence. Was that some kind of point you are trying to make? Because if so it backfired as the converse is also true: fewer guns does not correspond to less crime.

That was my original point from December that Rottweiler felt the need to dig up. Yes.

To your other point, I can more easily make the case that fewer guns does equal more safety than someone could make the argument that more guns equals more safety.

Then please go ahead and try to make that argument so we can all destroy it and then thumb our noses at your stupidity.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why is that? It's called free will, RDD. We all could have a tank in our yard and there still would be violence....that will never change.


Perhaps more guns does not equal more safety?
Please look at the link I provided in the post right above yours. That article should put some perspective into your statement.

Then why don't other first world nations have the level of gun violence that we have? They don't have free will?

Yes, there will always be violence no matter where you go, but to claim that increasing the prevalence of guns increases the level of safety has been shown to be false. There is no relationship between increased gun ownership and increased safety.

Because other first world countries don't have large populations of inner city Negroes, who are responsible for the bulk of crime in this country.

Go ahead...let it out. Tell us how you feel.

 

[RDD_1210]

The fact is, the most gun violence occurs where guns are restricted and the least amount of gun violence occurs where guns are permitted to be carried both open and concealed.

Link?

Are you too lazy to do your own research?

I didn't make the claim, why should I have to research it?

 

[tjvh]

I never said we were the most dangerous. I just asked why we aren't the safest. Big difference. Please frame your response around what I asked.

We aren't the safest because we have a very big drug problem in America, and illegal guns are a big part of that problem.

So making access to guns easy won't help our society become safer until we fix our nations drug addiction?

Punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals will not make America safer, it will make America even more dangerous.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then why don't other first world nations have the level of gun violence that we have? They don't have free will?

Yes, there will always be violence no matter where you go, but to claim that increasing the prevalence of guns increases the level of safety has been shown to be false. There is no relationship between increased gun ownership and increased safety.

Because other first world countries don't have large populations of inner city Negroes, who are responsible for the bulk of crime in this country.

Go ahead...let it out. Tell us how you feel.

Unlike you I dont express feelings. I express truths. And the truth is that if we eliminate crimes committed by young black men between ages 15 and 25 our crime rate looks like France.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's hard to compete with a country that has.....8 million people, and ours that has 300+ million people. That's why I used a per capita source to give some perspective.

I'm also talking per capita, as per my link. We have FAR more gun ownership per capita than any other nation on the planet. Why are we not FAR safer?

Because increased gun ownership does not equal increased safety.

Except you are making the wrong comparison.. not safer compared to some place like Switzerland or Prance... Safer compared to what we would be without the right to own firearms for our own protection, etc...

We are a violent culture.. our country was born and raised in violence.. but taking the weaponry away from the law abiding who would use it for sport, protection, etc WILL NOT MAKE IT SAFER

Good thing no one is seriously proposing taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Next strawman.

 

[The Rabbi]

Link?

Are you too lazy to do your own research?

I didn't make the claim, why should I have to research it?

Because you are poor at research. Here's a hint: AK, VT, and AZ require no permit to carry guns whatsoever. What is the rate of crime in those states compared to IL, MA, and NJ which have either no program for carry or so severely restrict the ability that basically no one can.

 

[RDD_1210]

You're right. There is no one to one correspondence. Was that some kind of point you are trying to make? Because if so it backfired as the converse is also true: fewer guns does not correspond to less crime.

That was my original point from December that Rottweiler felt the need to dig up. Yes.

To your other point, I can more easily make the case that fewer guns does equal more safety than someone could make the argument that more guns equals more safety.

Then please go ahead and try to make that argument so we can all destroy it and then thumb our noses at your stupidity.

I'd rather have you tell me more about your theory on those inner city "negroes". That's way more entertaining.

 

[RDD_1210]

We aren't the safest because we have a very big drug problem in America, and illegal guns are a big part of that problem.

So making access to guns easy won't help our society become safer until we fix our nations drug addiction?

Punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals will not make America safer, it will make America even more dangerous.

Good thing no one is trying to punish law abiding citizens.

 

[Meister]

That was my original point from December that Rottweiler felt the need to dig up. Yes.

To your other point, I can more easily make the case that fewer guns does equal more safety than someone could make the argument that more guns equals more safety.

Then please go ahead and try to make that argument so we can all destroy it and then thumb our noses at your stupidity.

I'd rather have you tell me more about your theory on those inner city "negroes". That's way more entertaining.

Do some research with crime in Detroit and Chicago and get back to us.

 

[RDD_1210]

Because other first world countries don't have large populations of inner city Negroes, who are responsible for the bulk of crime in this country.

Go ahead...let it out. Tell us how you feel.

Unlike you I dont express feelings. I express truths. And the truth is that if we eliminate crimes committed by young black men between ages 15 and 25 our crime rate looks like France.

So what do you propose? How do you fix the problem as you see it?

 

[Meister]

Go ahead...let it out. Tell us how you feel.

Unlike you I dont express feelings. I express truths. And the truth is that if we eliminate crimes committed by young black men between ages 15 and 25 our crime rate looks like France.

So what do you propose? How do you fix the problem as you see it?

Sad to say that until they fix the family dynamics where there is a father and a mother in the family to show what a real man is about, there won't be any progress in fixing the problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

Go ahead...let it out. Tell us how you feel.

Unlike you I dont express feelings. I express truths. And the truth is that if we eliminate crimes committed by young black men between ages 15 and 25 our crime rate looks like France.

So what do you propose? How do you fix the problem as you see it?

What problem would that be?

 

[itfitzme]

Notice no replies.....yet they have all the answers...

Get rid of laws. No laws, no criminals.

 

[rightwinger]

Notice no replies.....yet they have all the answers...

Get rid of laws. No laws, no criminals.

Criminals have a problem following any law. So in accordance with gun nuts, we should not have any laws

People will break them anyway