Going to be hard to stop the Train.

So how about discussing the discrepancy of states, cities, and counties passing many pro gun laws and policies verses the few states who passed anti gun legislation actually does anything to stop the train that has been gaining speed please.

 

Gee. Thank you.

 

PSSST I think you are in the majority. It's why the train is gaining steam

 

I await your evidence

 

He's stated it many times. LOL

 

I believe I did, Thanks

 

Yes you did. The same answer he gives to us should be good for him. LOL.

 

Why gun deaths? Why are you afraid of the clear picture that separating homicides from suicides provides?
States with less strict gun laws have fewer homicides! Isn't that pertinent information when it comes to crafting gun laws?

 

Total gun deaths should be ignored when making gun control laws? That makes no sense

 

zip codes with the most gun deaths and strictest gun laws would be pertinent, can you show em to us? I'll give you a hint. You posted the top cities with the highest gun deaths where Chicago listed 17th....what was the political culture of those cities...eh?

 

Maybe you should just drill down to the street or house level. LOL

 

Indeed it does make sense. Suicides have absolutely no relation to homicides, and should not be discussed at the same time. One involves crime, the other involves mental illness. Both standards depend on entirely different approaches for address. Unless of course you believe that police officers should be free to shoot and kill individuals suffering from schizophrenia.

 

If we were to then categorize those streets and houses by liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican what would that date likely show?

 

And yet gun control reduces gun deaths. The proof you can not deny

 

It can indeed be denied, because you have not presented it for review.

You claim firearm-related restrictions do reduce the number of firearm-related deaths. Then actually prove such. Pick a country, any country, and go about proving conclusively that it was the enactment of their firearm-related restrictions, and not anything else, that resulted in drastic drops of firearm-related deaths. Prove that it was the one, single, solitary action that yielded the results you are referring to. Show that any society, even violent societies where murders are committing for disrespect, can successfully be made less violent by nothing at all but restrictions on firearms being codified into law.

 

Such proof is not required for any law so it should absolutely not be required for gun control

 

We can indeed deny it, until you prove that gun control has CAUSED the reduced gun deaths. You can't even prove WHICH gun control laws are responsible for the reduced "gun deaths" which is code for suicides.
Have these states shown a reduction of gun deaths after implementation of such laws? A reduction that is above the national average in the same time frame?

- - - Updated - - -

It's only required if you are trying to effectively debate.

 

We have clear data that first world countries wit gun control have far fewer gun deaths per capita. We have the same at the state data. It is only in small numbers can you skew the data

 

First you use the word "proof". Then you back peddle.

 

Perhaps I misspoke. I should say evidence. Thank you

 

Do you mean skew by using words like suicide and homicide? Your beloved states have high homicide rates.

 

And low gun deaths

 

This stat is not evidence that shows causation. Try showing that these states have improved stats since the passing of specific gun control laws.
If one of your "lower gun death rates" states had higher gun death rates since passing gun control laws, would that prove that gun control works?

 

Nothing shows causation. Show me anything that PROVES causation. It doesn't exist because it can't. It is evidence for causation and I think pretty good evidence.

Again with the small numbers.....how are you not getting that one case does not dismiss the entire body of evidence. If one man smokes for 30 years and does not get cancer does that mean cigarettes don't cause cancer. That is the bias of small numbers

 

This means your states have lower rates of people dying from their personal choice.
And it means they have more people dying as innocent victims of violent criminals.