Gun Control Debunked

What did I just say about making **** up?

Or, you can actually show us some peer-reviewed studies confirming what you are saying. But you won't.

 

Oh, you've spent hours researching it, and you know one single person who has had side-effects?

That's not exactly the equivalent of a major university study, is it?

 

Considering the vast number of gun laws on the books, if you could write the law you seek, in the most general terms, how would you write it?

 

I never said anything about overthrowing the government. That was all you. But an armed populace is undoubtedly a check on tyranny. That is why the founders included the second amendment in the first place. Liberals want to control everyone and everything, so they need to disarm the populace first. Dead children are just a cynical pretext.

 

You cannot discard anything I say. As much as you want to be, you are not my master.

And what I said is 100% true. Democrats in cities all over the country ban guns. That's what they did in Chicago, it's what they did in DC, and it's what they would do given half the chance at the federal level.

 

You do not get to decide what is relevant and what is not. You are not special.

And the entire point of the second amendment is to serve as a powerful check against tyranny, which is why the founders included it in the bill of rights. For obvious reasons, Democrats want to remove this check on tyranny.

 

Your graph doesn't even have a source.

In any case, your data relies on people telling the truth about their ownership of firearms. There are many reasons why they would not tell the truth.

Also, a "household" is an ambiguous metric. You could have five people living in a "household", each one who owns a firearm. Yet the aggregate "household" metric would make it appear as if only one entity owned any guns.

What cannot be debated is that far more guns have come into private circulation, yet gun crime has gone down. According to gun control advocates, the exact opposite should be happening.

 

People still kill themselves. Sometimes people on antidepressants kill themselves and kill others.

 

I would suggest confronting the root cause of your depression. But failing that, natural medications are probably the best option.

That's not true at all. I have no idea why you would even think that.

 

Peer-reviewed studies are notoriously flawed. Your faith in them is entirely misplaced.

But I'll give you what you want, even though it shouldn't require any explanation:

So, as I said, a chemical imbalance is merely a symptom. In order to address depression, you must identify the root cause of this so-called "imbalance" in chemicals. More than likely, it is the result of stress: Physical and/or emotional abuse, trauma, illness, etc.

Medication can help you manage the symptoms, but it cannot cure you.

 

Comparing deaths by falling down to gun deaths is dishonest and largely irrelevant.
Those who die from falling over are generally old and frail members of society in their final years. It is more honest to suggest that they are dying because they are frail.
Gun deaths are more avoidable deaths of members of society often in their prime or even children.
Ask yourself how many children die from falling down?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-the-united-states/?utm_term=.288814a8cba7#2

This is not the only source showing this trend.

An, no, households are not an ambiguous metric. It's exactly how you would gun crime to scale. No guns in a household means no crime can be committed with a gun (unless one is bought), it's that simple, although you and other want to make it a lot more complicated.

Plus, the argument that households are not telling the truth about gun ownership is just an excuse. There is no evidence that this skews the data. In fact, a lot of the drop in gun ownership rates are accounted for by Democrat and Independent households owning less guns. Why would those households, who are most likely already opposed to gun ownership, lie on a survey? I wouldn't.

The truth is that a small percent of gun nuts own a large majority of guns and dominate the conversation. That's not democracy.

 

Maybe in the leftist world it is But in the real world of data mining it's considered a variable LMAO So you would contend under your rule of information, that a illegal gun owner in major city ghettos are truthful when asked "How many guns they own"?

Variables slick, there are many and they certainly skew the data

 

Thank you for sharing the data, but perhaps the issue isn't necessarily the overall number of guns owned in the US, but the amount of fire power one can legally carry. Overall violent crime in the US has been cut in half within my lifetime, as recent as the 1990s, homicide and other violent crimes were double what they are today. Contrary to what many people believe, the overall violent crime rate in the US has been on the decline for quite some time. However, the issue that has been repeatedly dominating the news are mass shootings. That is to say, incidents where one individual has been able to kill a high number of victims. We have already existing laws meant to limit the amount of firepower allowed for a civilian. For example, it is illegal for a civilian to own grenades, RPGs, or fully automatic weapons, unless they have a special license.

So I guess my question for you is would it be unreasonable to add certain weapons to the already existing list of weapons that are restricted for civilian use, and if so which ones would you add to the list?

I'm not sure if I've ever mentioned this on these forums, but my brother was a survivor of the Las Vegas shooting in which somewhere around 60 innocent people were killed that day, and I am proud to say that my brother did his part to make sure the number of casualties was not higher. Personally, I think there are certain policies we could pass that would allow all of us to do our part in preventing future incidents from having higher casualty counts. I'm not interested in taking away weapons used for self defense, my brother has a carry permit, and personally I think more people ought to get their permit and educate themselves on how to use their weapons. People need to understand that when they fire their weapons, those bullets are going somewhere. My brother wasn't carrying on the day of the Vegas concert (the venue wouldn't allow it), but as he explained to me, even if he was carrying, his gun wouldn't have been to any use to him on that day. He didn't know where the shots were coming from, but even if he did, from the distance he was standing he would not have been able to hit the gunman in the hotel room. Had he fired at that window, the bullets from his gun would have ended up in one of the hotel rooms down below the gunman. This is the kind of common sense gun use they teach people when they get their carry permit. Just like how people need to have common sense education when they drive a car on a public road, they need common sense education for carrying a gun in public.

but to get back on track with the broader point I wanted to make, there are some weapons that simply hold no purpose for self defense, they are only good for killing high numbers of people, because that is what they were designed for. We have existing laws that say civilians cannot own fully automatic weapons, yet we have pump stocks which work as a legal workaround to said laws. Bump stocks are highly inaccurate, and hold no purpose for self defense. They are only good for firing into a large group of people who are standing shoulder to shoulder, where the gunman is bound to hit someone just by firing into the general area.

In my opinion, bump stocks should be added to the list of restricted weapons for civilian use, but I also think we should consider restricting high capacity magazines as well. I've never known any incident where an individual was able to kill more than 15 people with with magazines that do not exceed a 10 round capacity. High capacity magazines aren't really meant for self defense, they are meant for shooting multiple targets.

Overall I don't think there is anything we can do to prevent some individuals from murdering innocent civilians, as there are many things that can be used as a weapon. They can use blades to go on a stabbing spree, or they can use a car to run down a crowd of people. That being said, there are things we can do to reduce the amount of damage that just one person is able to do, which to me is the broader issue of mass shootings in the US. It's not that gun homicides overall have gone up, it's the fact that we find it legally acceptable for civilians to own weapons capable of such destruction. These are not defensive weapons, they are offensive weapons

Let me know what you think of my post, I would be glad to get your opinion.

 

How does one obtain evidence that people are not telling the truth about owning guns?

If five people live in a household, and all five of them own a firearm, then how does that appear in the data? As ONE entity, correct?

Anyway, the USA is not a "democracy", it is a federation. Democracy is something that happens at the local level. So if you actually care about democracy, then you will let State and local governments decide for themselves.

But as I've often found, liberals only care about "democracy" when it goes their way. When it doesn't, they have nothing but disdain for it.

 

Death rates for drug poisoning and drug poisoning involving opioid analgesics and heroin**

Number of deaths: 50,000 (approx)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 16.3

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2016/027.pdf

Why are you outraged over 11,000 gun homicides but not over drug deaths? The left wants to make that all legal dontcha know.

 

Good point! And you have my cat.

 

We see how laws are working so well. They only result in 50,000 deaths a year. How many more people need to die to satisfy your need to control people?

You choose to try drugs. You don't choose to get shot.

 

See this post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gun-control-debunked.515688/page-11#post-1068716122

Drug deaths are as avoidable deaths of members of society often in their prime or even children.

 

Your psychiatric opinions are noted and laughed at

 

The man with the gun chose to acquire it and use it for illegal purposes.

Control people? If several bad people break into your home to rob it and decide to rape and murder your wife and children with knives, are you saying you wouldn't want to "control" them?

 

All avoidable deaths should be targeted for reduction. Diverting the topic to drug deaths is no more honest than trying to divert the topic to falling down deaths or road traffic accident deaths.

 

This is really laughable. You count your life every day on the results of peer reviewed studies. LOL

 

You have accused me of cat napping before. This is Boudica, a flame haired Norfolk warrior Queen sadly no longer with us. I bet your ginger cat is a tom. 100 to 1 says it is.

 

Shouldn't the the pressing issue be the situation with the most deaths? Or don't you care?