universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence - how is this not true?

[CrossCuT]

see movie:A Million Ways to Die in the West 2014 R CC

Dont have time, could you provide textual data? Im sure the movie references some studies or something that you could link here.

[Anomaly]

if gun deaths went down while gun ownership stayed the same, it is a statistical anamoly and maybe there are other reasons. ( i know when gun deaths went down in previous decades, it was probably because food stamps existed so people didn't need to engage in crime. ) i call it an anamoly because the studies ive seen show across the globe, and across the USA, the more guns a geographic area has, the more likely there are to be death, period. (not just gun deaths but overall deaths)

there's little point in pointing out that people can just get guns illegally if they are set on it. (that's like saying some people will violate traffic laws if they want to. doesn't mean we should't have traffic law. or any laws for that matter) the point is gun regulation will prevent some people from having a gun and thereby committing crimes they otherwise might have had they happened to have a gun. not everyone is black hoodie intent on getting guns by any means necessary,

and there's little point in saying people will just kill with knives. the studies ive mentioned show that gun precense causes overall deaths to increase, not just gun deaths. it's simple when you think about it: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to kill someone. plus remember during that shoot fest years ago i think in december, there were over twenthy people mostly killed and injured... while the same day in a gun controlled country there were twenty plus wounded by knives... wounded v killed, there's a world a difference there. 

Dairy,

You know better than unbiased fact?   So you dismiss what I just presented without spending 15 minutes in Google.  

That is why society doesn't fix things. Obstinate ignorance rooted in bias and fed with emotion, the hell with fact, reality, and perspective.   

We will waste time and money arguing about gun control and different sides spending millions on lobbyists, further dividing people and creating artificial animosity instead of focusing our resources on something of bigger import. 

Completely laughable if it wasn't such a tragic waste that creates unnecessary polarization. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

how am i ignoring facts? i took the fact cited, and presented other facts that were of a more global perspective. that if my facts are true, would leave the fact presented to me as an anomaly. the studies i cite are corraborated by common sense: the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to kill someone. studies and common sense is corrobarated by my annecdotal experiences: i have a lot more street experience than many realize and i can say the more likely someone is to have a gun, the more likely they are to be aggressive, suicideal, run their mouth, etc. one outlier fact isn't going to change the weight of the evidence here. 

[Anomaly]

LOL.  As coherent and lucid as always!   It's been awhile Dairy. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry if i wasn't clear. i dont know what i wasn't clear about or what needs elaborated upon. 

[little2add]

Dont have time, could you provide textual data? Im sure the movie references some studies or something that you could link here.

google it.  be advised: the movie may or may not  be construed as satire with a grain of truth

[CrossCuT]

google it.  be advised: the movie may or may not  be construed as satire with a grain of truth

Burden of truth is on you; you made the claim.

[KnightofChrist]

Got some data?

It's funny when I watch westerns and they have six shooters but they take 20 plus shots without reloading. Hollywood is just as good with historical facts.

 

The Mild, Mild West

[...]

The Westerners in this history survived by learning to get along, as Terry Anderson and Peter Hill document in their new book, "The Not So Wild, Wild West." These economists, both at the PERC think tank in Montana, argue that their Western ancestors were usually neither heroic enough to make it on their own nor strong enough to take it away from others.

Yes, some robbed and killed other settlers and Indians, but when they contemplated the basic economic question on the frontier -- to raid or to trade? -- they usually preferred trading to risking their own lives. They were entrepreneurs in what's now called institutional economics, inventing social systems to deal with chaotic situations like the California gold rush that started in 1848, when there were no established laws to govern mining.

It was Hobbes's prescription for "war of every man against every man," and he was echoed by newspaper predictions of a "theater of tragic events" in which "brute force will reign triumphant." But the miners peacefully worked out rules for delineating claims and resolving disputes so well that the system was adopted at later camps like Deadwood.

Roger McGrath, a historian who studied dozens of Western mining camps and towns, found a high rate of homicide in them mainly because it was socially acceptable for young, drunk single men to resolve points of honor by fighting to the death. But other violence wasn't tolerated, he said.

 

"It was a rather polite and civil society enforced by armed men," Dr. McGrath said. "The rate of burglary and robbery was lower than in American cities today. Claim-jumping was rare. Rape was extraordinarily rare -- you can argue it wasn't being reported, but I've never seen evidence hinting at that."

Deadwood's bad reputation was established by the famous killing of Wild Bill and enhanced with claims that the miners averaged a murder a day. But Deadwood historians like Watson Parker dismiss that statistic.

"Pure bilge," Dr. Parker told me. "There wasn't an awful lot of violence in Deadwood except for the crooks and drunks killing each other. When everybody has a gun on his hip, they tend to avoid confrontation."

Another Deadwood historian, Bob Lee, said that the best account of the two peak years of the gold rush, 1876 and 1877, lists only 77 violent deaths in all the Black Hills, most outside Deadwood, and most attributed to Indians, who were understandably angry at the invasion of their lands by both miners and troops under George Armstrong Custer.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/the-mild-mild-west.html?_r=0

[CrossCuT]

If the world is safer when everyone has guns, could you extrapolate that and say the world would be better if everyone had nukes too?

[KnightofChrist]

If the world is safer when everyone has guns, could you extrapolate that and say the world would be better if everyone had nukes too?

No more Wild, Wild West and shoot'em up Cowboys, now Nukes, what next Aliens? 

I don't believe anyone or nation should have possession of nuclear weaponry. They are planet killers and cannot ever be used without taking a great number of innocent life. However, M.A.D. has thankfully worked, so far, no nation has used nukes against a nation with nukes or ailed with a nation with nukes and the reason is simple and similar to why most people with evil intentions don't attack other people with guns, they don't want to get shot too.

Edited October 7, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

If the world is safer when everyone has guns, could you extrapolate that and say the world would be better if everyone had nukes too?

if it is about safety and saving lives primarily, then let's put forth effort addressing what is more of a threat to life and limb.  Slip and falls and auto accidents.   Just visit CDC for the statistics.   Especially considering deaths from guns have been on a consistent decline for 40 years, despite more guns in US society.  

How about addressing something that causes thousands of deaths a year and number have deaths have about doubled in the last 25 years!  It is an unsafe device with plenty of other options.  

 

An issue where deaths are INCREASING vs an issue were deaths areDECREASING.  Unless the point is not about saving lives... it's something else. 

[Didacus]

Has anyone studid the Australian example: they banned all guns a few years! ALL

Once they've done this - crime in Australia have increased including violent crimes. Crines with guns are still present but unsure if it stayed stagnant oe increased.  

 

Basically a grud dealer doesn't worry so much about gun being every and goes about his business unhindered.  

 

I never looked into it in detail - but certainly makes for a good case study.  

If the world is safer when everyone has guns, could you extrapolate that and say the world would be better if everyone had nukes too?

mutually assured destruction was a major concept that kept the cold war from breaking out to a nuclear war. The principal remains in play and the heated debates on this raged throughout the eithies) - but they has no threads to poist so we ressurect old threads and see what they had to say.  

[little2add]

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

to be clear about australia, they banned most guns, not all of them, and did a buy back program to get guns off the street. in pure numbers gun violence went up slightly in years after the ban then went down. in terms of homicide rate, deaths constantly went down to around fifty percent of what it used to be. to add to this, they had a mass shooting once per year before the ban, and have had no mass shootings for the years and years after the ban. 

ive tried saying it before but i will say it again. the studies i see say that the more likely a country or state is to have guns, the more likely their homicide rate is to be higher. i can find the data if someone insists. so not its not true that more guns equals more safety. 

 

i dont like those memes that say "if we ban guns it will get ride of them. does that work for meth??" no one says gun regulations will get rid of guns,,,,, they say it will have some positive effect. just like meth and drug laws. if it was legal to do drugs, more people would do it. 

i can see my points have been falling on hallow ears. 

there a difference between slip and falls and car accidents and gun violence. the first ones are a natural part of life and accidental. gun violence is not natural and is not accidental. this argument is pretty ridiculous.... almost like grasphing at straws or that you will say anything to defend guns or something. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

satirical look at gun control. with emphasis on australia.