If Guns Kill People...

[danielpalos]

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?

Not enough morals to go around in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the, incorrigibles?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What I'm talking about is a massive reduction of guns in society

Your words.

So if it's not the number of guns why are you advocating a "massive reduction in the number of guns in society"?

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

 

[cnm]

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

The same way anyone manages to leave a gun show alive if people kill people.

 

[cnm]

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates

The experience of other developed nations show gun laws certainly reduce firearm homicide rates.

edit...Oh, and firearm crime rates.

But you're talking gun laws that aren't really gun laws. For instance, banning handguns in an area surrounded by locations where handguns aren't banned is not effective. The laws have to be national to have a chance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates

The experience of other developed nations show gun laws certainly reduce firearm homicide rates.

No they don't.

And I have linked to many sources that say they don't so go read them

 

[cnm]

Usually when practical matters of how to reduce gun violence are broached the next stop is the Constitution.

 

[cnm]

No they don't.

They do. If not, why are other industrialised countries' firearms homicide rates lower than the rate of the US? And why are you denying that they are. Delusions?

edit...Oh, well, gun nut, of course. My Bad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No they don't.

They do. If not, why are other industrialised firearms homicide rates lower than the rate of the US?

You assume that the only variable between us and other countries is guns

That is naive and simplistic

Now go read all the sources I linked to and your questions will be answered.

 

[cnm]

Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

Gun homicides and gun ownership by country - The Washington Post

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries.​

I suppose this will be denied or called fake news or something nutty like that.

 

[cnm]

You assume that the only variable between us and other countries is guns

The denial is strong in this one. This is the gun nut we're looking for...

edit...I also assume you're a Cracker and blame blacks. How close am I?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gun homicides and gun ownership by country

Gun homicides and gun ownership by country - The Washington Post

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries.​

I suppose this will be denied or called fake news or something nutty like that.

No it assumes that guns and guns only are the single variable which as I said is naive and simplistic.

Look at the murder rates in countries that have enacted strict gun laws and you will see that their gun laws did not reduce their murder rates from the levels they were before the gun laws were enacted.

Catch up with everything that's been said in this thread

 

[Skull Pilot]

You assume that the only variable between us and other countries is guns

The denial is strong in this one. This is the gun nut we're looking for...

edit...I also assume you're a Cracker and blame blacks. How close am I?

You are a ******* moron. How close am I?

I have never once mentioned race in any gun thread if I have then you find that and post it here.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

read it

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because, if there are a lot of guns in society, there is a lot of availability of guns in society. Kind of stands to reason, hey?

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to **** around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are being contradictory.

If the number of guns doesn't matter then availability doesn't matter.

You want to make guns less available in order to decrease the number of guns so as to decrease crime.

So you are saying that decreasing the number of guns will decrease crime are you not?

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to **** around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?