42 guns REALLY?

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
@Diotrephes

@Diotrephes

People have different interpretations of the 2nd amendment to suit what they want to believe.

To me people interpret the 2nd part:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But ignore the first part if they want to own guns. The US has by far the world's most powerful military, the security of the free state from outside our borders is not in question, not even a little bit. From within, if we can not trust our own government, having a bunch of firearms is not going to make a whit of difference. Anyone that has served in the modern forces know it would be purely suicidal to go up against the government to try to "protect" your own freedom. You could have a base in the woods somewhere, with 50 men armed to the teeth with guns, training and exercise etc, and one military drone would wipe them all out in the middle of the night w/o the people ever seeing it coming, and no matter how many guns they had. Even if they dug and lived in hardened bunkers.

The reality is, the 2nd amendment is badly BADLY outdated, and needs to be updated. If people still wanted gun rights it should read something like:

"The right of the people to keep and bear any gun, shall not be infringed."

And just simply admit that people's rights to own guns supercede the right for people to live free of gun related violence. Which can be fine if the majority agrees. Just like the majority agree that people can rent a 44 foot long 13 ton vehicle on a normal licence (As long as it does not have the "fifth wheel." And in many states, a whole lot more. You can kill a lot of people with such a vehicle, but we all agreed that everyone having the right to drive such a vehicle should be allowed and we accept the risk that it makes.

I of course see little reason for the vast majority of people to own a gun at all, and for the few that do, a few low capacity lower fire rate is more then enough to suit their needs.

Sky Pilot's picture
LogicForTW,

LogicForTW,

You do know that all of the States have their own Constitutions and that most of them specifically say that people have the right to possess guns.

The shooting happened in Nevada and the Nevada Constitution says:

Text of Section 11:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Civil Power Supreme

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_1,_Nevada_Constitution

Notice that Nevada didn't include the silly BS about a well-regulated militia.

The killer was in compliance with the Nevada Constitution up and until he started shooting.

Other States impose some restrictions and still others don't mention the right to bear arms in their Constitutions.

LogicFTW's picture
I am well aware state, county

I am well aware state, county, city laws. And they often supercede the US constitution. If only all these people constantly going on about the 2nd amendment realize their are going on and on about a law that has barely anything to do with anything at the local level.

That's fine, people can say their state constitution protects them not an outdated 2nd amendment to the US constitution.
2nd US constitution amendment is so vague too. There is all kinds of laws at a state and city level that works out the important details (like exactly what constitutes as a legal gun.)

Of course the part that the killer was in "compliance" up until he started shooting is the scary part. Most anyone can amass the amount of equipment only designed to kill other people that one angry person having a bad day can easily kill 59 people and cause injury to over 500 others. Fortunately this guy was not smarter and more brutally efficient in his killing with all this legal killing equipment. We should be glad he did not buy a legal machine minigun that can spit out 2-6k rounds a minute due to a loophole in legacy guns. He certainly had the financial means to do so. I seen adverts in Las Vegas that advertises being able to fire one of these legal mini guns at a firing range just 15 minutes outside of the las vegas strip.

Unfortunately we can probably expect copycat killers now that it is so well publicized just how easy it is and how utterly powerless even armed trained professional police on scene at the very start of the shooting were. Imagine if he had a spotter with a good scope at a different angle telling the shooter what to shoot at, say in a room in the Luxor.

mykcob4's picture
Now the number of firearms is

Now the number of firearms is 47. 12 bump stops that convert a semi-automatic to fully auto-automatic. Senate majority leader said it is not appropriate to address gun legislation.
So when is it appropriate? Huh? When is this nation going to wake the fuck up?
The technology of guns far outreaches what the founders understood or intended. It is time to disband the NRA to ban guns, or at least take responsible steps to limit capabilities that produce incidents like Las Vegas.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
https://www.washingtonpost

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-...

THE BELOW ARTICLE (INCLUDING CITATIONS) IF FROM THE BELOW LINK:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7872/7-facts-gun-crime-show-gun-control-do...

Why Gun Control is a bad idea:
1. Washington, D.C.'s gun ban worsened the city's homicide rate. As The Daily Wire has previously explained[1]:

In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare.

According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro[2], the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders.

D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws[3] in the country and consequently is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live[4], but the facts clearly show that homicides in D.C. rose after the ban was implemented and then subsequently declined after the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

2. The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn't work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. However, the facts tell a different story.

Two studies – a 2007 British Journal of Criminology study[5] and a 2008 University of Melbourne study[6] – concluded that Australia's temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.

"Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Lott. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback."

"Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts," Lott continued. "In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased."

In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force[7]. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban: 2010.

Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban[8].

A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left's favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control doesn't work.

3. The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center[9] determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones[10]. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones.

As Lott points out, there are 320 million people in America but only 628,000 police officers, so it's impossible for the police to protect everybody. That's why it's prudent for citizens to arm themselves.

4. According to Lott[11], there is a clear correlation between higher firearm ownership and reducing police killings. The conclusion he came to was that there is a 3.6 percent decrease in police killings for every percentage point increase in those owning a firearm. Naturally, the inverse was also true: Lott found that "from 2013 to 2015, the six states (plus the District of Columbia) that banned open carry actually experienced higher rates of police death (20.2 versus 17.3 per 100,000 officers)."

No wonder a recent National Association of Chiefs of Police survey[12] found that 86.4 percent of 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs support concealed carry and are overwhelmingly against further gun control. In light of the recent murders of cops, it has become even more important to have an armed citizenry.

5. There is also a correlation between fewer mass public shootings and higher gun ownership. According to Lott and the University of Chicago's Bill Landes[13], between 1977 and 1999 "right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed."

6. As the number of guns per person has increased, gun violence has declined. This is according to the Centers for Disease Control[14], which found that gun ownership increased by 56 percent, and yet gun violence declined by almost 50 percent between 1993 and 2003. If the premise of gun control zealots were correct, then wouldn't gun violence have increased during that period of time?

7. The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research[15] from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.

Citations:
[1] http://www.dailywire.com/news/179/cuomo-uses-aides-funeral-push-gun-cont...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292
[3] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/d-c-gun-laws-some-of-the-st...
[4] http://wtop.com/local/2016/02/d-c-baltimore-city-among-most-dangerous-pl...
[5] http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker%20and%20McPhedran%2020...
[6] http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf
[7] http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-af...
[8] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-cri...
[9] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/13/libertarian-party-calls-for-e...
[10] https://nypost.com/2016/06/15/why-terrorists-target-gun-free-zones/
[11] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438327/gun-control-police-officers...
[12] http://crimeresearch.org/2016/07/new-survey-of-chiefs-of-police-and-sher...
[13] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/look-facts-gun-free-zones-j...
[14] http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-vi...
[15] http://www.dailywire.com/news/6619/study-guns-are-six-times-more-likely-...

LogicFTW's picture
All that work..

All that work..

Copy and pasted?

And it is so obvious from the get go you cherry pick the data to fill your agenda.

How does it feel to be a shill for giant gun manufacture companies?
I guessing you do not even get paid to do it.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. "Copy and pasted?" - Yeah

1. "Copy and pasted?" - Yeah copied and pasted, but it's what I believe.
2. "And it is so obvious from the get go you cherry pick the data to fill your agenda." - Proof?
3. "How does it feel to be a shill for giant gun manufacture companies?" - How does it feel to be a shill for the democrats?

LogicFTW's picture
3. I am not a Democrat, (Nor

3. I am not a Democrat, (Nor republican,) so guess again. Yes, I voted for Mrs Clinton. Not because I like her, but she is clear to anyone with half a brain she is the better of two terrible choices and I am in a potential swing state/voting district. Figures you immediately bring partisan divide into this. Every chance I get I vote for moderates, (both dem and republicans.) 3rd party, or protest, (not) vote.

1. Whoops I see that, up top you cite your source, so obvious copy and paste. Guess you cannot be bothered to do anything other then copy and paste for your side of the argument. Seems weak.

2. Since you actually responded I will take the time to go through this.

-

Why Gun Control is a bad idea:
1. Washington, D.C.'s gun ban worsened the city's homicide rate. As The Daily Wire has previously explained[1]:

In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare.

According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro[2], the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders.

D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws[3] in the country and consequently is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live[4], but the facts clearly show that homicides in D.C. rose after the ban was implemented and then subsequently declined after the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

This guy is talking homicide rates. Not homicides via gun. Also the population of DC area rose a lot from 1976 to 1993. This same time saw a large uptick in overall homicides rates nationally, regardless of areas that had gun or no gun laws. DC area, per capita murders by firearm rate actually raised slower than many other large metro areas in the same time period. That sounds like success to the law to me.

Homicide rates went down, roughly the same time as the gun law was struck down because nationally homicide rates went down. Again talking homicides not homicides via firearm. Also, we are talking about one area. What about all the other areas in the country with and without gun laws? Do you really think letting everyone suddenly have guns will cause homicides via firearms to actually go down by it self? Really?
Makes perfect sense a dangerous area has strict gun laws. To do otherwise would be stupid. To bad the effectiveness of gun laws are cut off at the knees because the area is surrounded on all sides where guns are very legal and easy to get, with a free flow of the borders of the area.

Again using homicide rates to talk about guns is absurd. I could say, oh homicide rates are up when they enacted the 55mph speed limit, and back down when they did away with that law. So 55mph speed limit was killing more people! Oh noes!

Also what about all the other areas of the country that did or did not ban firearms. Why can't the author just say: in areas there were gun bans homicides via firearms went up, and when those areas overturned that, homicides via gun arms went down. Oh because the average states the opposite. Ooops. Ultimate cherry pick right there picking one area, and I even stated why the cherry picked spot was in error.

2. The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn't work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. However, the facts tell a different story.

Two studies – a 2007 British Journal of Criminology study[5] and a 2008 University of Melbourne study[6] – concluded that Australia's temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.

"Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Lott. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback."

"Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts," Lott continued. "In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased."

In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force[7]. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban: 2010.

Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban[8].

A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left's favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control doesn't work.

First it says temporary ban, then it compares gun buyback. Which one are we talking here? Did the author try to link the two? My guess yes.

Care to explain Japan? How about South Korea? Hong Kong? Want a longer list? Strict gun laws, near non existent firearm-related death rates. The UK has a very low firearm related death rate. .23 persons per 100k compared to over 45 times the rate from the US? The UK is a success story of gun control. Australia is still 12 times lower than the US. These are arguments FOR nationwide gun control!! A downward trend in trend in firearm homicides, coincides with a world wide downward trend in all forms of homicide and violent crimes in first world western countries. Again the data shows, the areas that enacted gun control laws saw even greater gains in reducing this number then areas that did not. No increase in homicides as gun ownerships increased, but areas that had more gun control saw an even greater reduction rate of homicides let alone fire arm related homicides. Again these quotes do not account for world wide trends in western first world countries like the US.

A pattern emerges, a hopping around from "homicides" to homicide via fire arms, as needed, and convenient zero mention of world wide trends in overall homicide rates. CHERRY PICKING!!! (not to mention failure to mention all the gun control success stories which there are the majority. The left eh? Obvious written by people that like to create divide and "fight the left as the enemy." You wont hear me saying "the right blah blah blah" I just say NRA (owned and ran by gun manufacturers) and other gun lobbying groups. I do not even want to take away everyone's guns, just weapons of mass death, that's only useful function is to kill/injure a lot of people very quickly.

3. The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center[9] determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones[10]. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones.

As Lott points out, there are 320 million people in America but only 628,000 police officers, so it's impossible for the police to protect everybody. That's why it's prudent for citizens to arm themselves.

This section is so stupid it pretty much instantly discredits the author and anyone that uses it. It is flat out wrong. Orlando, Christina Grimmie, citizen gun free zones, not gun free zones. In Orlando the guard at the front door had a gun. (Trained professionally to use it too!) Quick google search on Christina Grimmie. That was 1 person, not a mass shooting. And it was after the concert finished! Wow how wrong can you get? Every major concert I been to in the last 10 years had all kinds of policemen inside the concert, armed with guns. We do not need people to bring more. Anyone that knows anything about proper gun safety and use would know armed citizens performing untrained vigilante type defense of themselves or others will only make the situation far worse.

It is even more impossible for police to protect people from themselves when everyone has firearms.

4. According to Lott[11], there is a clear correlation between higher firearm ownership and reducing police killings. The conclusion he came to was that there is a 3.6 percent decrease in police killings for every percentage point increase in those owning a firearm. Naturally, the inverse was also true: Lott found that "from 2013 to 2015, the six states (plus the District of Columbia) that banned open carry actually experienced higher rates of police death (20.2 versus 17.3 per 100,000 officers)."

No wonder a recent National Association of Chiefs of Police survey[12] found that 86.4 percent of 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs support concealed carry and are overwhelmingly against further gun control. In light of the recent murders of cops, it has become even more important to have an armed citizenry.

Police chiefs and sheriffs, aka the guys that are not on the streets but sitting in an office. Also police killings is left ambiguous in this snipping, are we talking people killed by police, or police officers killed by people? Number one killer of policemen is automobile related, did they include those numbers in the question? It does not say. Also 2.9 police officers out of 100k, that is a really small difference. Probably statistically insignificant. Again it also does not account for many other possible factors that could be far greater than open carry laws.

5. There is also a correlation between fewer mass public shootings and higher gun ownership. According to Lott and the University of Chicago's Bill Landes[13], between 1977 and 1999 "right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed."

Let's see, where is there areas of mass public gatherings... is it butfucknowhere town in middle of nowhere state population 282? Oh I know this! Large cities! Also in one sentence the person is talking about correlation of gun ownership and without pause the author jumps to right to carry, then in the same sentence jumps to concealed handguns. Wow how can you take anything this guy says seriously?

6. As the number of guns per person has increased, gun violence has declined. This is according to the Centers for Disease Control[14], which found that gun ownership increased by 56 percent, and yet gun violence declined by almost 50 percent between 1993 and 2003. If the premise of gun control zealots were correct, then wouldn't gun violence have increased during that period of time?

Already mentioned this, violent crime is down. Way down. Everywhere, regardless of gun control laws. Areas that had better gun control laws saw even greater gains for the most part then areas that did not. Despite the effectiveness of gun control being hobbled by not being nationally controlled. However the US has far and away the most firearm related death of any first world country. Also gun owners tend to buy more then 1 gun way more. (Who know's why, what an expensive and awful and useless hobby.) Less than half of the population actually own guns.

7. The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research[15] from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.

Well duh. One would hope that was true. If it was 414k firearm homicides a year to 414k non fatal illegal gun uses, we would have a real problem on our hands. Does not mean firearms are good.

-

-

Really it all boils down to this.Firearm-related deaths per 100k.

US - 10.54 (Most lax gun control laws in first world western countries!) Guns in the US 112 per 100 inhabitants.
Next highest comparable country:
Finland - 3.25 (less than 1/3rd!)
Switzerland - 3.01
France - 2.83
Canada - 1.97
Norway - 1.75
Greece - 1.52 (and there are in the middle of severe recession!)
New Zealand - 1.07
Australia - .93 (as mentioned they had and continue to have strict gun laws.)
UK - .23 (more than 45 times less than the US and also had/has strict gun laws.)
South Korea - 0.08
Japan - 0.06 (less than 1 gun per inhabitant)
Hong Kong - 0.03 All 3 of these bottom ones have very strict gun control laws. 1 in 3.333 million people die to a firearm here. More likely to to win the lottery.

If you read and know this and still think guns are a good idea, you are a shill for gun companies, brainwashed to post gun manufactures agenda to get people to buy more guns!

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. "3. I am not a Democrat,

1. "3. I am not a Democrat, (Nor republican,) so guess again." - And I have no shares, no membership or have any relationship with big gun companies.

2. "Whoops I see that, up top you cite your source, so obvious copy and paste. Guess you cannot be bothered to do anything other then copy and paste for your side of the argument. Seems weak." - I found an argument that was of good quality with sources, and good length, which was better then what I could have done. I was in a hurry.

3. "This same time saw a large uptick in overall homicides rates nationally, regardless of areas that had gun or no gun laws" - According to More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition by John Lott (Same Guy) "DC's murder rate increased relative to other cities even before crack cocaine became an issue (which lead to the large uptick in overall homicides rates nationally you were talking about)...DC's murder rate still increased dramatically relative to murder rates in other cities. While the crack cocaine epidemic clearly increased DC's murder rate, it is hard see how cocaine can explain DC's increase in murder rates relative to other cities either any time from 1977 to 1987 or afterward." https://books.google.com.au/books?id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=...

4. "Also the population of DC area rose a lot from 1976 to 1993." - No it didn't. It actually feel from 692295 to 595301. Percentage wise, 1976 homicide: 0.03%, 1988: 0.06%, 1993: 0.08%.

5. "DC area, per capita murders by firearm rate actually raised slower than many other large metro areas in the same time period." - No it didn't. Look at point 3.

6. "Homicide rates went down, roughly the same time as the gun law was struck down because nationally homicide rates went down. Again talking homicides not homicides via firearm." -According to the FBI, in 2012, homicide went up 25%, but in 2013, when the gun law got taken away, it dropped 27%!!!!!! Try and find any other state with something like this. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/... https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/...

7. "Again using homicide rates to talk about guns is absurd. I could say, oh homicide rates are up when they enacted the 55mph speed limit, and back down when they did away with that law. So 55mph speed limit was killing more people!" - Any facts, data, or LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE that can have such an extreme outcome on homicide??????? There may be slight correlation, but I have a lot of correlation that legitimately questions whether there is causation.

8. "gun bans homicides via firearms went up, and when those areas overturned that, homicides via gun arms went down." - Please find ANYWHERE where I, or my sources, has said that. The sources and me never say GUN homicide, but homicide in general. Of course, at least straight after the ban, gun homicides will go down, but homicides nearly go up everywhere there is a gun ban and go down when the gun ban goes.

9. "First it says temporary ban, then it compares gun buyback. Which one are we talking here? Did the author try to link the two? My guess yes." - The author John Lott only mentions the buy-back period and never mentions the temporary ban.

10. "Care to explain Japan?" - The nigh-total gun ban happened in 1978. And it went low after it as well, and has been low for a while. Problem is, it has been getting low for some time, and no proof that gun laws had any difference the continued lowered rate. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9pHfBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=19... and if you look at the top graph, the major crimes reported has barely moved at all throughout the 20th century.

11. "How about South Korea?" - I cannot find any murder statistics before the 1961 gun control legislation, and therefore can't find before or after. Australia has a relatively low homicide rate, as does S.Korea, but it has been proven that it is irrelevant from the gun control legislation due to homicide statistics before hand, however I cannot find statistics before gun legislation in S.Korea. There is correlation between low homicide and strict gun control in S.Korea, but you must prove causation.

12. "Hong Kong?" - Anti-gun legislation happened in 1999. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=FJ-oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT52&dq=hong+kong+h... According to this, homicide was already on the down slope without the help on gun laws.

13. "The UK has a very low firearm related death rate. .23 persons per 100k compared to over 45 times the rate from the US? The UK is a success story of gun control. Australia is still 12 times lower than the US. These are arguments FOR nationwide gun control!!" - I know they are going down, that's what happens with anti-gun legislation. But that has nigh-no link to ACTUAL homicide. To show that there is no link, look below that the graph. (Shit editing by me sorry mate). As for england, look up. It didn't work. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-a.... The CDC says that it didn't. Only one year is better then before 2010. That's it. Not total, but percentage wise.

14. "No increase in homicides as gun ownerships increased, but areas that had more gun control saw an even greater reduction rate of homicides let alone fire arm related homicides. Again these quotes do not account for world wide trends in western first world countries like the US.

A pattern emerges, a hopping around from "homicides" to homicide via fire arms, as needed, and convenient zero mention of world wide trends in overall homicide rates. CHERRY PICKING!!! (not to mention failure to mention all the gun control success stories which there are the majority. The left eh? Obvious written by people that like to create divide and "fight the left as the enemy." You wont hear me saying "the right blah blah blah" I just say NRA (owned and ran by gun manufacturers) and other gun lobbying groups. I do not even want to take away everyone's guns, just weapons of mass death, that's only useful function is to kill/injure a lot of people very quickly." - Any facts or statistics? Any at all?

15. "citizen gun free zones, not gun free zones" - That is what was implied. The shooter was a citizen.

16. "That was 1 person, not a mass shooting. And it was after the concert finished! Wow how wrong can you get?" - It was never said that it was a mass shooting. The statement "The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones." does not refer to the Orlando shooting as mass shooting.

17. "Anyone that knows anything about proper gun safety and use would know armed citizens performing untrained vigilante type defense of themselves or others will only make the situation far worse." - But a shooter will be less inclined to shoot, and I highly doubt that all people with guns would shoot haphazardly, not wanting to shoot anyone accidentally.

18. "Police chiefs and sheriffs, aka the guys that are not on the streets but sitting in an office." - They are also guys with high-levels of experience, and as they are sitting in an office, they have access to data and facts that guys on the street don't.

19. "Also police killings is left ambiguous in this snipping, are we talking people killed by police, or police officers killed by people?" - It says "rates of police death" in the text.

20. "Number one killer of policemen is automobile related, did they include those numbers in the question?" - It doesn't say, but it is assumed that it is important because police chiefs and sheriffs want less gun control.

21. "Also 2.9 police officers out of 100k, that is a really small difference. Probably statistically insignificant." - But if you compare the 2.9 to the 20.2 to 17.3, and the fact that the is between open carry and non-open carry states, I'd say it is important.

22. "Again it also does not account for many other possible factors that could be far greater than open carry laws." - Far greater.......

23. "Let's see, where is there areas of mass public gatherings... is it butfucknowhere town in middle of nowhere state population 282? Oh I know this! Large cities!" - The shooters took the guns to those places, they weren't bought there.

24. "Also in one sentence the person is talking about correlation of gun ownership and without pause the author jumps to right to carry, then in the same sentence jumps to concealed handguns. Wow how can you take anything this guy says seriously?" - When correlation of gun ownership is first talked about, the 'guy' isn't the one talking it. He talks about carry first, which is one point, then when he goes to his second point, he talks about concealed handguns. Not that hard.

25. "Already mentioned this, violent crime is down. Way down. Everywhere, regardless of gun control laws. Areas that had better gun control laws saw even greater gains for the most part then areas that did not." - Stats?

26. Compare the trends before and after gun control legislation.

27. "If you read and know this and still think guns are a good idea, you are a shill for gun companies, brainwashed to post gun manufactures agenda to get people to buy more guns!" - You know I could say (with meaning, like I actually believe it) "If you read and know this and still think guns are a bad idea, you are a shill for the democratic party, brainwashed to post democratic party's agenda to get people to buy less guns!", but I don't believe because you are not part of the democrats and not brainwashed, like I'm not part of the gun companies and I'm not brainwashed.

Have a good day :)

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. "3. I am not a Democrat,

1. "3. I am not a Democrat, (Nor republican,) so guess again." - And I have no shares, no membership or have any relationship with big gun companies.

2. "Whoops I see that, up top you cite your source, so obvious copy and paste. Guess you cannot be bothered to do anything other then copy and paste for your side of the argument. Seems weak." - I found an argument that was of good quality with sources, and good length, which was better then what I could have done. I was in a hurry.

3. "This same time saw a large uptick in overall homicides rates nationally, regardless of areas that had gun or no gun laws" - According to More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition by John Lott (Same Guy) "DC's murder rate increased relative to other cities even before crack cocaine became an issue (which lead to the large uptick in overall homicides rates nationally you were talking about)...DC's murder rate still increased dramatically relative to murder rates in other cities. While the crack cocaine epidemic clearly increased DC's murder rate, it is hard see how cocaine can explain DC's increase in murder rates relative to other cities either any time from 1977 to 1987 or afterward." https://books.google.com.au/books?id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=...

4. "Also the population of DC area rose a lot from 1976 to 1993." - No it didn't. It actually feel from 692295 to 595301. Percentage wise, 1976 homicide: 0.03%, 1988: 0.06%, 1993: 0.08%.

5. "DC area, per capita murders by firearm rate actually raised slower than many other large metro areas in the same time period." - No it didn't. Look at point 3.

6. "Homicide rates went down, roughly the same time as the gun law was struck down because nationally homicide rates went down. Again talking homicides not homicides via firearm." -According to the FBI, in 2012, homicide went up 25%, but in 2013, when the gun law got taken away, it dropped 27%!!!!!! Try and find any other state with something like this. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/... https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/...

7. "Again using homicide rates to talk about guns is absurd. I could say, oh homicide rates are up when they enacted the 55mph speed limit, and back down when they did away with that law. So 55mph speed limit was killing more people!" - Any facts, data, or LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE that can have such an extreme outcome on homicide??????? There may be slight correlation, but I have a lot of correlation that legitimately questions whether there is causation.

8. "gun bans homicides via firearms went up, and when those areas overturned that, homicides via gun arms went down." - Please find ANYWHERE where I, or my sources, has said that. The sources and me never say GUN homicide, but homicide in general. Of course, at least straight after the ban, gun homicides will go down, but homicides nearly go up everywhere there is a gun ban and go down when the gun ban goes.

9. "First it says temporary ban, then it compares gun buyback. Which one are we talking here? Did the author try to link the two? My guess yes." - The author John Lott only mentions the buy-back period and never mentions the temporary ban.

10. "Care to explain Japan?" - The nigh-total gun ban happened in 1978. And it went low after it as well, and has been low for a while. Problem is, it has been getting low for some time, and no proof that gun laws had any difference the continued lowered rate. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9pHfBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=19... and if you look at the top graph, the major crimes reported has barely moved at all throughout the 20th century.

11. "How about South Korea?" - I cannot find any murder statistics before the 1961 gun control legislation, and therefore can't find before or after. Australia has a relatively low homicide rate, as does S.Korea, but it has been proven that it is irrelevant from the gun control legislation due to homicide statistics before hand, however I cannot find statistics before gun legislation in S.Korea. There is correlation between low homicide and strict gun control in S.Korea, but you must prove causation.

12. "Hong Kong?" - Anti-gun legislation happened in 1999. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=FJ-oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT52&dq=hong+kong+h... According to this, homicide was already on the down slope without the help on gun laws.

13. "The UK has a very low firearm related death rate. .23 persons per 100k compared to over 45 times the rate from the US? The UK is a success story of gun control. Australia is still 12 times lower than the US. These are arguments FOR nationwide gun control!!" - I know they are going down, that's what happens with anti-gun legislation. But that has nigh-no link to ACTUAL homicide. To show that there is no link, look below that the graph. (Shit editing by me sorry mate). As for england, look up. It didn't work. https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-a.... The CDC says that it didn't. Only one year is better then before 2010. That's it. Not total, but percentage wise.

14. "No increase in homicides as gun ownerships increased, but areas that had more gun control saw an even greater reduction rate of homicides let alone fire arm related homicides. Again these quotes do not account for world wide trends in western first world countries like the US.

A pattern emerges, a hopping around from "homicides" to homicide via fire arms, as needed, and convenient zero mention of world wide trends in overall homicide rates. CHERRY PICKING!!! (not to mention failure to mention all the gun control success stories which there are the majority. The left eh? Obvious written by people that like to create divide and "fight the left as the enemy." You wont hear me saying "the right blah blah blah" I just say NRA (owned and ran by gun manufacturers) and other gun lobbying groups. I do not even want to take away everyone's guns, just weapons of mass death, that's only useful function is to kill/injure a lot of people very quickly." - Any facts or statistics? Any at all?

15. "citizen gun free zones, not gun free zones" - That is what was implied. The shooter was a citizen.

16. "That was 1 person, not a mass shooting. And it was after the concert finished! Wow how wrong can you get?" - It was never said that it was a mass shooting. The statement "The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones." does not refer to the Orlando shooting as mass shooting.

17. "Anyone that knows anything about proper gun safety and use would know armed citizens performing untrained vigilante type defense of themselves or others will only make the situation far worse." - But a shooter will be less inclined to shoot, and I highly doubt that all people with guns would shoot haphazardly, not wanting to shoot anyone accidentally.

18. "Police chiefs and sheriffs, aka the guys that are not on the streets but sitting in an office." - They are also guys with high-levels of experience, and as they are sitting in an office, they have access to data and facts that guys on the street don't.

19. "Also police killings is left ambiguous in this snipping, are we talking people killed by police, or police officers killed by people?" - It says "rates of police death" in the text.

20. "Number one killer of policemen is automobile related, did they include those numbers in the question?" - It doesn't say, but it is assumed that it is important because police chiefs and sheriffs want less gun control.

21. "Also 2.9 police officers out of 100k, that is a really small difference. Probably statistically insignificant." - But if you compare the 2.9 to the 20.2 to 17.3, and the fact that the is between open carry and non-open carry states, I'd say it is important.

22. "Again it also does not account for many other possible factors that could be far greater than open carry laws." - Far greater.......

23. "Let's see, where is there areas of mass public gatherings... is it butfucknowhere town in middle of nowhere state population 282? Oh I know this! Large cities!" - The shooters took the guns to those places, they weren't bought there.

24. "Also in one sentence the person is talking about correlation of gun ownership and without pause the author jumps to right to carry, then in the same sentence jumps to concealed handguns. Wow how can you take anything this guy says seriously?" - When correlation of gun ownership is first talked about, the 'guy' isn't the one talking it. He talks about carry first, which is one point, then when he goes to his second point, he talks about concealed handguns. Not that hard.

25. "Already mentioned this, violent crime is down. Way down. Everywhere, regardless of gun control laws. Areas that had better gun control laws saw even greater gains for the most part then areas that did not." - Stats?

26. Compare the trends before and after gun control legislation.

27. "If you read and know this and still think guns are a good idea, you are a shill for gun companies, brainwashed to post gun manufactures agenda to get people to buy more guns!" - You know I could say (with meaning, like I actually believe it) "If you read and know this and still think guns are a bad idea, you are a shill for the democratic party, brainwashed to post democratic party's agenda to get people to buy less guns!", but I don't believe because you are not part of the democrats and not brainwashed, like I'm not part of the gun companies and I'm not brainwashed.

Have a good day :)

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
mykcob4's picture
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT UnKnown!
Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Now there are two categories:

Now there are two categories: Australia and United States. Now, Australian homicides has gone down, I will admit, but not until it had reached PEAK of nigh-360 in 2002 (1996 was a bit over 300). Now Australian gun related homicides has gone down, but I a quoted in the above three sources (One was a British Journal of Criminology, University Study, and the Crime Research Prevention Center president) saying that the buyback and gun restrictions and no affect. I am not denying that gun homicides didn't go down, they did, but it wasn't because of the gun laws. Now, I am surprise, but two studies, and a quote found this out. In America, yes gun homicides went down in places with gun laws, which is what you studies showed, but I am saying that actual homicides went up, which is what MY studies showed.

So, to conclude:
Australia: Gun taking had nigh-no affect in actual homicides, and gun taking had no affect on the decline of gun homicides.
America: With gun laws, gun homicide went down, but actual homicide went up.

P.S. Except for the Daily Wire, I cannot find a single conservative site that I quotes, some are even liberal. Can you please say some of the studies that I sited which right-wing.
P.P.S. Whose to say that my scientific studies aren't "REAL" studies. I could say the exact same thing about you, but both claims are baseless without evidence, which you have not stated.
P.P.P.S I think we need to guns due to the fact that they were in the constitution to protect one-selves against a tyrannical government, not home invaders and robber, but it does come in handy then. Now you might say that the Founding Fathers never imagines for AR-15's. True. But, they could never have imagined, using your same logic, TV's, so they are exempt from the First Amendment. Muskets, which is what the Founding Father's were talking about with firearms, were military grade. AR-15's aren't. Lastly, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, and other socialist, tyrannical leaders, stripped gun rights. Look what happened. That just proved the Founding Fathers correct.
P.P.P.P.S Why do you swear so much?

mykcob4's picture
No, Unknown you posted sites

No, Unknown you posted sites that were specifically driven to oppose gun control they were not independent. You chose sites that were in the same vein as what Tobacco did about cancer, and what Coal and Oil are doing about Global Warming. They are propaganda.
I swear because I want to if you don't like it fucking tough!

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. "I swear because I want to

1. "I swear because I want to if you don't like it fucking tough!" - Yeah sure, whatever you want.
2. "You chose sites that were in the same vein as what Tobacco did about cancer, and what Coal and Oil are doing about Global Warming. They are propaganda." - Can you provide some examples.
3. Can you debate against what I have said in the above?

Closet_atheist's picture
@mykcob4

@mykcob4
So in England it's not the ban of guns but the loss of police? Even though police numbers are dwindling, because after losing their guns they are constantly assaulted; beaten with bats, stabbed, many times even shot. But it's not a gun restriction problem... rofl

Yes Switzerland does have a degree of control yet they have mandatory military service. (For men) which instills discipline and gun safety, which I very much agree with.

You cited another liberal news media about gun violence, "Misleading", a good word to describe, shows a graph of low population gun restrictive countries next to the US. Of course USA is going to look massively homicidal on that chart, but if ratioed by population it would look fairly flat. Then again you can hardly ever trust liberal numbers, they almost always add suicidal gun deaths as part of their violent statistics.

I agree with CyberLN on brain health tests but I'm also afraid eccentrics might feel abused, which might hamper innovations.

mykcob4's picture
@Closet_atheist

@Closet_atheist
Aren't suicides violent? You just want to cherry pick which gun death is kept for an overall statistic.
These aren't "Liberal" stats. They are the real numbers. As far as comparing the US with other nations, the fact is that the US is the most violent nation in the world.

CyberLN's picture
"the fact is that the US is

"the fact is that the US is the most violent nation in the world."

I don't think that's true, myk. I think that description belongs to Brazil. Will you site the source for the above, please?

CyberLN's picture
?

?

mykcob4's picture
Well, you have to disregard

Well, you have to disregard the nations that have ongoing open warfare.

CyberLN's picture
That does not answer the

That does not answer the question.

mykcob4's picture
https://www.usnews.com/news
CyberLN's picture
Ok, that is specific to

Ok, that is specific to deaths from firearms. The statement you made that I'm calling into question was that the U.S. is the most violent nation in the world. So either you erred or you've some data other than the link you've just shared.

mykcob4's picture
Oh for cryin' out loud

Oh for cryin' out loud CyberLN this thread is about firearms. What the hell do you want? So I wasn't specific about what type of violence. I wasn't taking into account violence in nations at war. The thing is that firearm violence is just inexcusable and the USA has way too much of it. There is a remedy. Among civilized industrial nations, the USA is at the top in GUN violence. There, you satisfied now? Sheesh!

CyberLN's picture
I'm confused. Are you

I'm confused. Are you contending that Brazil is at war?

LogicFTW's picture
US has by far most gun

US has by far most gun related homicides by absolute measures, it is near the top in a per capita basis. Tops for western first world countries.

US has by far the most guns in citizens hands on a per capita basis.

The richest country the world has ever seen has the most people die to firearms.

Problems? Seems obvious to me.

CyberLN's picture
Undoubtedly.

Undoubtedly.

mykcob4's picture
No, I am not denying or

No, I am not denying or questioning what you said about Brazil. I'm sure you are correct by virtue of you posting history. I generally take what you say for granted that it is accurate. But the USA has a gun problem that exceeds most civilized nations.

Nyarlathotep's picture
HT Man...the right to bear

HT Man...the right to bear arms...

You got it all wrong; this should help:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sky Pilot's picture
The good thing about getting

The good thing about getting hit with a clean kill shot is that you won't die from cancer and if you get a good one in the head it's painless and very quick.

LogicFTW's picture
>sarcasm<

>sarcasm<
I am sure that comes to mind for family and friend members of someone that gets killed this way, and gives them great relief.
>/sarcasm<

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.