That More Gun Control Would Reduce Gun Violence, Is Common Sense

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's so much without question true what im sayin that i wanted to debate it again with all the main points said up front. it's really incontrovertible, what i'm arguing....

 

they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.

studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.

japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented.

if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution?

there's no question control would be helpful, and at the very least give more control a shot

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.

You're right. They also have really powerful crime organizations/mafias because only criminals can get guns.

 

studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.

That could be said about knives too. I'd rather be shot than stabbed. 

 

japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.

That argument's made about religion too. 70% of Japanese people do not profess a religion. Does that mean becoming atheist makes us less likely to commit crime? Correlation does not equal causation.

 

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented.

Most of these checks are just annoyances for good people. Bad people will find a way to get guns. 

 

if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution?

Why give criminals more power?

there's no question control would be helpful, and at the very least give more control a shot

No. It might stop idiots from getting guns but it won't stop people who are determined to harm others.

[jeffboom]

it's so much without question true what im sayin that i wanted to debate it again with all the main points said up front. it's really incontrovertible, what i'm arguing....

 

they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.

studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.

japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented.

if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution?

there's no question control would be helpful, and at the very least give more control a shot

 

Having a gun in your house does increase your chances of being injured. I consider this to be one of the last remaining natural selectors affecting humans.
 

[havok579257]

Having a gun in your house does increase your chances of being injured. I consider this to be one of the last remaining natural selectors affecting humans.
 

 

 

although statistically your more likely to be shot from someone inside your house than an intruder.  something also to think about.

[Jesus_lol]

although statistically your more likely to be shot from someone inside your house than an intruder.  something also to think about.

 

 

What statistics are those? Im guessing from the Kellerman study for the CDC,? those and other studies based of their data have been thoroughly discredited as biased and faulty in data collection and analysis. 

[Jacen Marx]

although statistically your more likely to be shot from someone inside your house than an intruder.  something also to think about.

 

Can't really compare those well.  There are a lot more people in and out of your house than intruders.

[elizabeth09]

What about the criminals?  Are they down as well?  May I have a web site where you are getting your information on, please?

[T-fish]

People who lack Faith need guns. 

God said carry a sword. 

[Socrates]

Yep.  The state with the strictest gun control laws also has the most gun murder rates, and the U.S. city with the highest murder rates also has some of the strictest gun control laws.

 

 

"The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See"

 

 

It's really incontrovertible.

[jeffboom]

People who lack Faith need guns. 

God said carry a sword. 

 

take-props

[havok579257]

Yep.  The state with the strictest gun control laws also has the most gun murder rates, and the U.S. city with the highest murder rates also has some of the strictest gun control laws.

 

 

"The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See"

 

 

It's really incontrovertible.

 

honestly this is a statement that lacks complete truth.  Cause the state is touching other states that do not have strict gun laws.  Its not hard to buy a gun across state lines and bring it over there.  I think to negate that is just trying to ignore facts.

[Socrates]

honestly this is a statement that lacks complete truth.  Cause the state is touching other states that do not have strict gun laws.  Its not hard to buy a gun across state lines and bring it over there.  I think to negate that is just trying to ignore facts.

 

Exactly what facts are being ignored?  Do you have any actual information that most murders in California were in fact committed with guns purchased in other states, or are you just blowing smoke?  The inconvenient fact remains that strict gun laws in places such as California and Washington D.C. are not effective in keeping gun violence low.

 

Also, if "gun control" laws are the key to keeping gun violence low and saving lives, the converse should also be true - places with the least gun control laws should see more gun violence.  However, the article notes that Utah has the least gun control laws, and also one of the lowest gun murder rates in the country.  Even crazy cowboy gun-totin' Texas has only half the gun murders of California, and the worst states in terms of gun murders are "liberal" states with stricter gun control laws.

 

There is simply no consistent negative correlation between gun control laws and gun deaths.

 

However, imo, these statistics really have no bearing on the central issue of the right of persons to self-defense (and the means to self-defense).

While "gun control" advocates try to claim the moral high ground by claiming the laws they favor "save lives,"  the facts show such claims to be bogus.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'''You're right. They also have really powerful crime organizations/mafias because only criminals can get guns.

 

so you agree that they have lower gun violence and death. okay then. even if i take for granted what you say as true, we still have better results in australia overall

 

 

 

 

'''That could be said about knives too. I'd rather be shot than stabbed. 

 

 

there are probably like three hundred million knives out there, probably many times less guns. that means per gun or knife, you are more likely to be killed with a gun. plus common senisically, if you want to kill people, and have a gun, you ae more likely to do it, and more likely to cause lots of harm otherwise 

 

 

'''That argument's made about religion too. 70% of Japanese people do not profess a religion. Does that mean becoming atheist makes us less likely to commit crime? Correlation does not equal causation.

we dont have to follow their religion. if they can show us something useful to us besides stupid religious stuff, we should listen. maybe they are an example of if we took all guns away, very difficult work. but it shows it can be done. 

 

 

'''Most of these checks are just annoyances for good people. Bad people will find a way to get guns. 

 

checks are a key point. even if i accept that othe types of controls are hard to figure out if efffective, controls are not something to me blown off. you say youself "most" of those checks are annoyances. that means not all of em are. and you say bad people will find a way to get a gun, but to say what i said before, not all of them will. bob is violent prone. he can't get a gun legally. so he doesn't. when he goes off and doesn't have a gun, someone is saved. this is simple common sense. sometimes people like bob will get the gun, sure. not always. in fact id guess not usually. again most people are not black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. 

why not err on the side of caution. 

 

'''Why give criminals more power?

 

we are not giving them more power. if we took all guns maybe you could say that. all we are doing is making it more illegal to have them for bad people. 

 

'''No. It might stop idiots from getting guns but it won't stop people who are determined to harm others.

 

to use your own words, then we stopped the idiots. we can stop everyone, especially those detemined. but we can stop a lot of people. 
 

 

usually with political issues i can see some give and take, see the other side etc. but with gun contol, at least with background checks.... and this insistent resistence is just stupid. there's no way around it. 

 

Edited May 8, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think u can find states and countries with lots of guns, with few deaths, and lots of guns, and a lot of deaths etc. 

much is cultural. much is what other states cause to seep into the states that have laws etc. much is how they do the laws, what kind of controls.

 

but what is inescapable is that we should use background checks. and if we wanted to do a japan all out ban, we probbly could... but it would not be pretty in the mean time getting to that point. 

that's how australia did what it did, and japan etc. 

ya'll can't act like these countries and studies don't exist. 

 

better background checks at the very least. anything else is just stupid. 

(that;s why you dont hear arguments about them, just about evidence about various states counties that dont favor gun control etc

[dairygirl4u2c]

japan and australia are two islands. so if they have massive bans, iots not like people can just bring more over the border. the geography issue here is probably pretty significant.