How many democrats own guns?

[JoeNormal]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents. In essence, they don't affect anyone who doesn't care about the consequences of breaking them. However, in sum they have a positive effect on preventing crime.

 

[JoeNormal]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

Crossed a numerical threshold? What are you talking about?

 

[Conservative65]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents. In essence, they don't affect anyone who doesn't care about the consequences of breaking them. However, in sum they have a positive effect on preventing crime.

The laws don't have an affect. People choosing whether or not to follow them do. Passing more won't change a thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

 

[Conservative65]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

Crossed a numerical threshold? What are you talking about?

You said laws don't affect anyone not caring about the consequences of following them. Liberals seem to think passing a larger number of laws will mean people will start caring that don't care now.

 

[JoeNormal]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

 

[JoeNormal]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

Crossed a numerical threshold? What are you talking about?

You said laws don't affect anyone not caring about the consequences of following them. Liberals seem to think passing a larger number of laws will mean people will start caring that don't care now.

That's your numerical threshold? Interesting theory but I've never heard anybody state that we need x number of laws to be safe and we only have x-15.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

 

[JoeNormal]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

Have they always had a fraction of the gun violence we have or is it only since their gun bans?

One thing we do know is that the murder rate in the UK is virtually the same as it was in 1950 and that even after the gun bans of 1968 murder rates still rose in the 80s and 90s

Our murder rate is now what it was in 1950 and has been dropping steadily since the 90s without any European or Aussie style gun bans

So our murder rate was higher than the UK before the UK put in place their ultra strict gun laws and we have found that over the last 60 years both the UK and the US have seen a peak in murder rates in the 80s to the 90s and a steady decline back to 1950 levels

So tell me since their gun laws resulted in the same murder rate trend as ours how can you say their gun laws reduced murder rates when our murder rates mirrored them albeit at a slightly higher level from a higher baseline

Could it be we will always have a higher murder rate than the UK or France because of other sociological factors than merely guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

 

[JoeNormal]

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

Have they always had a fraction of the gun violence we have or is it only since their gun bans?

One thing we do know is that the murder rate in the UK is virtually the same as it was in 1950 and that even after the gun bans of 1968 murder rates still rose in the 80s and 90s

Our murder rate is now what it was in 1950 and has been dropping steadily since the 90s without any European or Aussie style gun bans

So our murder rate was higher than the UK before the UK put in place their ultra strict gun laws and we have found that over the last 60 years both the UK and the US have seen a peak in murder rates in the 80s to the 90s and a steady decline back to 1950 levels

So tell me since their gun laws resulted in the same murder rate trend as ours how can you say their gun laws reduced murder rates when our murder rates mirrored them albeit at a slightly higher level from a higher baseline

Could it be we will always have a higher murder rate than the UK or France because of other sociological factors than merely guns?

Yeah, it's possible. They seem a little more enlightened than average Americans.

I don't know why you would want to compare the US to UK murder rates. We're almost 4x higher than they are. We might have both peaked at about the same time but if anything, I think it shows that a major factor working against us is the widespread availability of guns.

 

[JoeNormal]

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

 

[JoeNormal]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle and that there are so many guns currently in circulation that gun laws will have limited effect. I'd like the gun lobby to own up to that however. They've created this shit sandwich that we're now forced to eat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle....

Yes.
The question is: Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation?

 

[JoeNormal]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle....

Yes.
The question is: Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation?

Yes.
Would you like to offer another theory on why gun violence is so prevalent in our country?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle....

Yes.
The question is: Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation?

Yes.

So you understand that your citation the stronger gun laws in other countries does not support the point you tried to make.
Good.
I'll say again: Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Would you like to offer another theory on why gun violence is so prevalent in our country?

If you subtract every single gun-related crime in the US, our violent crime rates is still significantly exceed that of those western states. Thus, the problem is not our gun laws, and the solution is not theirs.

 

[JoeNormal]

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

I've already somewhat agreed with you that the genie is out of the bottle....

Yes.
The question is: Do you understand that correlation does not prove causation?

Yes.

So you understand that your citation the stronger gun laws in other countries does not support the point you tried to make.
Good.
I'll say again: Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Would you like to offer another theory on why gun violence is so prevalent in our country?

If you subtract every single gun-related crime in the US, our violent crime rates is still significantly exceed that of those western states. Thus, the problem is not our gun laws, and the solution is not theirs.

The fact is that they have way fewer guns per capita. You don't want to believe that this is a result of stricter gun control laws and since correlation doesn't prove causation we're apparently left wondering why that is.

Less violent as a general rule... What's that about? No wild west mentality? Better safety net? Not forced to work insane hours to meet some societally approved level of affluence? Do you want to offer a theory on that or do you consider it an unknowable mystery?

 

[Conservative65]

Impeccable logic. No reason to have laws if criminals are going to break them...

Nice strawman.
The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have them if they don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What you said is part of my argument. We have lots of laws in place that don't work yet the Liberal mindset is having more of the same will suddenly cause those breaking them to stop because it crossed a numerical threshold.

Crossed a numerical threshold? What are you talking about?

You said laws don't affect anyone not caring about the consequences of following them. Liberals seem to think passing a larger number of laws will mean people will start caring that don't care now.

That's your numerical threshold? Interesting theory but I've never heard anybody state that we need x number of laws to be safe and we only have x-15.

It's not my theory that we need more. My statement was that many Liberals think passing more laws saying what laws we already have on the books say will convince criminals that they shouldn't commit crimes.

I've asked many of the gun control freaks a question. I'll see if you can answer it. I had a gun stolen from my LOCKED vehicle, while sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, by someone UNINVITED to enter the vehicle or be on the property. The big Liberal push is background checks. What type of background check is that criminal going to go through in order to have the gun he/she stole?

My point is that the laws that gun control freaks want to pass won't affect a criminal that steals the gun they get. Passing more that they will ignore won't suddenly cause them to stop being criminals because a numerical threshold has been passed.