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

[Winchester]

We obviously don't count the violence perpetrated by the uniformed personnel enforcing it.

 

I hate statism.

[havok579257]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

actually as has been pointed out here the study did show that gun laws decreased deaths slightly and mass murders were down also.  although that can be ignored since it doesn't support most people's point of view on here.

[Winchester]

Like in DC, and Chicago?

 

Let's all pretend uniformed violence is superior!

[jeffboom]

I believe it is every American's duty to own at least 2 assault rifles. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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.

If that was true, there wouldn't be illegal drugs there either. I've first hand witnessed groups of people doing illicit drugs in Australia. 

[jeffboom]

The countries with the most strict gun control laws still experience mass shooting events. Consider the Norway shooting.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

 

[Winchester]

I love the ethnocentrism of the statists. I mean that in a spiteful way, because they're so incredibly small-minded. Like missionaries who would order tribal people to dress according to the standards of their home country.

 

I mean, it's just so bigoted.

[jeffboom]

more guns = more funs

[havok579257]

I love the ethnocentrism of the statists. I mean that in a spiteful way, because they're so incredibly small-minded. Like missionaries who would order tribal people to dress according to the standards of their home country.

I mean, it's just so bigoted.

Are you just incapable of acting like an adult and having an actual debate or is all you can do is to try to insult people? seriously, act like an adult.

[jeffboom]

If anyone is looking for a cheap way to build an AR style rifle, PM me!

[Nihil Obstat]

If anyone is looking for a cheap way to build an AR style rifle, PM me!

Nice try, ATF. :|

[Socrates]

actually as has been pointed out here the study did show that gun laws decreased deaths slightly and mass murders were down also.  although that can be ignored since it doesn't support most people's point of view on here.

 

Perhaps you can point it out, because I'm not seeing what you're referring to.  What study?  What gun laws?

 

The article did discuss gun laws and murder rates in Washington D.C. following a gun ban enacted in 1976, and the data shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

 

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

 

 

(Read the source article here.)

 

The article does say that the murder rate slowly and steadily declined since 1994, after peaking in 1993, but that has nothing to do with the gun ban which had  been enacted 18 years earlier - during which period homicides sky-rocketed - and homicide rates remain above pre-ban levels.

The D.C. homicide rate continued to decline after the gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional in 2007.

 

But I guess all that can be ignored since it doesn't support the view of those of you who want more government "gun control."

 

There remains no compelling evidence that more government infringement on constitutionally-guaranteed rights is needed. 

[Winchester]

Are you just incapable of acting like an adult and having an actual debate or is all you can do is to try to insult people? seriously, act like an adult.

 

There's no debate to be had. The statements about gun laws in other countries are ethnocentric statements advanced by statists, and I described my feelings about that.

 

At any rate, one side of the debate is advancing non-aggression. That would be me. I'm the adult. The other side is a bunch of children who believe in hitting people who won't do what they want.

 

Hey, your side is winning. Savor the victory.

[jeffboom]

Nice try, ATF. :|

 

You know I'm not ATF. I'm just trying to get law-abiding Catholics strapped. 

Edited May 9, 2013 by jeffboom

[dairygirl4u2c]

people can almost surely find studies to support their agenda no matter the side of the debate.

 

but one thing that is inescabpable is that we should have back ground checks. 40% of all sales are done without a check. why allow legally to a criminal something that should be illegal?

you may 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?

it will surely some some lives.

i can also cite the study that says if you havea gun in your home, you and those around you are more likely to be harmed because of it. this also points to the fact that limiting who has a gun, and the ease in getting one, will surely reduce violence.
even if some livesa saved wasn't statistically significant, it's still lives saved. it can only help. but it's more than statistically significant. it's obivous that it'd help reduce gun violence.