Aussie has the answer for US gun control

You repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-us-gun-control.550064/page-9#post-1070213948

-Still- waiting for you to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.
Why do you refuse to understand that correlation does not prove causation?

 

You can't read. Here is the uncut post "I don't care if it applies to you or not - you quoted my post. Actual evidence presented that showed the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm with NO INCREASE in knife murders."

 

-You- can't read your own post -- I highlighted the relevant section for you, above.

-You- repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."

-Still- waiting for you to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

 

This again high lights your dishonesty. You regularly cut posts (which is against PF rules) and you post lies. You cut my sentence in two. Why are you even in this forum. You never contribute to any debate. You are obsessed with defending the 2nd amendment using dishonest actions.

Actual evidence presented that showed the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm with NO INCREASE in knife murders."

Now run away again from my full uncut sentence/

 

-Your- sentence contains -two- separate claims; I asked -you- to support one of them (and don't give a hoot in hell about the other)
-You- have refused to do so.

Why are -you- even in this forum?
-You- never contribute to any debate.
-You- are obsessed with attacking the 2nd amendment using dishonest actions.

-You- repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."

-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

But you wont, because you know you cannot.

 

How I see this, constitutional rights will override any attempt to have Gun control in US. It's like "guns secure your safety, just shoot first" (dead people can't do any harm). Just kill who's threat to you and your family. Maybe I'm wrong about this, how it is...so feel free to school me as you like.

Also everything has plus and negative aspects. Maybe we should talk about where is the line, how many gun related deaths is still ok? Maybe paradigm will change after next 100 years, but we are not seeing when it happens (if it ever happens).

 

Darn Constitution, protecting people's rights. How dare it!!

For every gun used to commit murder, 7.3 are used in self-defense
For every gun used to commit suicide, >3.7 are used in self-defense.

 

Which bit don't you get? It is the pro-gunners who claim that murderers will use a different tool to murder if guns are banned. You know, like in post 145 "The total homicide rate was not affected by the ban and in some cases it resulted in other weapons being used." Understand yet?

 

The part where you make a claim, refuse to back it up, and then expect to be taken seriously.

-You- repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

 

Yep, you ran away again. Not a surprise

 

Prove that those guns were used in self defense.

 

The only person running here is you:

-You- repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

But you won't, because you cannot.

 

Oh, the irony.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...er-94-900-defensine-gun-uses-per-year.550810/
The numbers are actually higher than claimed in the post you responded to - I went by memory.

-You- repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

But you won't, because you cannot.

 

LOL The very first sentence in your link is "Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes"!

Then it carries on: In 2014, across the nation there were only 224 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 7,670 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2014, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year."

But of course to you, your dishonest posting will equate guns used to commit murder to someone just showing a gun in his pocket to a criminal as being self defense because he was feeling scared. And what does "For every gun used to commit murder, 7.3 are used in self-defense" even mean?

And then we have:
CONCLUSION The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 34.4 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2014 the persons shot and killed were known to the shooter.

Great own goal!

 

94,900 defensive gun uses per year, 2013-2015.

Thus:
-For every gun used to commit murder, >10.8 are used in self-defense
-For every gun used to commit suicide, >4.4 are used in self defense.
I am not surprised you do not like the truth.

You repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

But you won't, because you cannot.

 

So funny. You even cut out parts of the link you posted and I then quoted because it showed how wrong you are!

 

I am not surprised you do not like the truth.
Nothing you posted in any way shows anything in my post to be incorrect.
Disagree?
Cite the text.

You repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.

But you won't, because you cannot.

 

Wow:
The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 34.4 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2014 the persons shot and killed were known to the shooter.


Extract :The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to ... fatal unintentional shootings.
Astonishing!

 

I said:

According to the rabidly anti-gun VPC, firearms were used 284,700 times in self-defense against violent and property crime, 2013-2015; this averages to 94,900 defensive uses per year.
Thus:
-For every gun used to commit murder, >10.8 are used in self-defense
-For every gun used to commit suicide, >4.4 are used in self defense.

Please highlight the text from your except that proves these statements wrong.
You won't, of course, because you know you cannot.

You repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.
But you won't, of course, because you cannot.

 

OK. But look at this fact from your own link (thanks for that) :
Extract :The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to ... fatal unintentional shootings.
Astonishing! To think that people carry guns because they think that from every shadow a criminal is going to murder them but the gun will keep them safe

 

Thank you for admitting my numbers are correct.

Now, back to your utter and complete failure to support your claim:

You repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.
But you won't, of course, because you cannot.

 

So funny. You keep running away from the conclusion in the link you provided which is:
Extract :The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to ... fatal unintentional shootings.

Astonishing! To think that people carry guns because they think that from every shadow a criminal is going to murder them but the gun will keep them safe. So you're more likely to shoot and kill yourself than shoot and kill a criminal - wow, what sort of defense is that! That would be like having a fire extinguisher in your house that spontaneously combusts at random moments

 

You do not like the fact the numbers I posted are correct? Oh well.

Now, back to your utter and complete failure to support your claim:

You repeated the myth perpetrated by anti-gun fanatics that:
"...the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm...."
-Still- waiting for -you- to prove this claim with something other than a post hoc fallacy.
But you won't, of course, because you cannot.

 

How many mass shootings can legitimately be attributed to impulsiveness in terms of mental health? How many mass shootings can be classified as occurring simply because they could occur, and required no investment of effort to carry them out?

Impulsiveness is nothing more than an excuse created and perpetuated by so-called "experts" in the fields of mental health, who failed to detect blatant signs of mental illness and impending violence, simply because mental health is not an exact science.

 

Then by the admission of yourself, legal firearm owners are not the problem, and are not posing a danger to others. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to be proposing and discussing restrictions on the legal acquisition and ownership of firearms.