I would first need to ask whether crime goes down as gun ownership goes up. Then I would stop, because it doesn’t (see previous responses to your comment, and readily available global stats on violent crime and gun ownership).
5 Likes
And if you take Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, and New York City out of the picture, we have a LOWER gun crime and homicide-via-gun than the EU average. This is, primarily an URBAN problem, in areas with extensive gun control. Might I suggest you investigate the very substantially-researched works of John Lott on the relationship between legal guns and crime rates. HINT: the areas with very high gun-crime rates ALSO have extensive gun-control regimes in place. . .
2 Likes
Clearly they are designed for anti-inductive reasoning. “Why would you think that?” “Because it’s never worked before!”
3 Likes
Oh right, I’m sure this guy knows ALL ABOUT what goes on inside the minds of the Obama Administration.
Your ability to cherry pick and whitewash must serve you well in the summer.
5 Likes
I believe the response, as outlined above is “burn the heretic!”
Just one word, “regulated”, yet it’s such an important ommission from all the gun-control shouting matches. 
5 Likes
so, no. You wont provide to this discussion any examples of the defensive weaponry you are saying is threatened? What I need to do is purchase a book to understand your easily explained point?
Thanks for adding so much!
3 Likes
How many of the guns used in those crimes are coming from places in the US without such strict laws?
4 Likes
Shhhh!!
Only pay attention to PART of the Second Amendment!
:-/
6 Likes
Here you go. But basically that is the National Guard.
1 Like
So, because CRIMINALS use guns illegally, it’s perfectly fine to prevent lawful ownership ?? Amazing. Do tell, how hard is it to get a gun in LA, Chicago, or NYC. . . they may be illegal, but you’d have little problem getting one.
Concentrate on the CRIMINALS, not the citizens. .
I dunno, I don’t see a lot of anti-gun control folks willing to talk about what’s a reasonable degree of regulation. It always seems like any regulation is too much for you guys.
Case in point. Unrestricted access to automatic weapons through the mail seems like a pretty reasonable thing to restrict.
No massacres? Saint Valentine's Day Massacre - Wikipedia
Using Thompsons no less.
You guys can insist on ideological purity and be unwilling to talk about the appropriate amount of regulations for firearms in our society in which case people who know less about firearms than you do will discuss among themselves and you guys will ultimately get screwed over. Or you can participate and maybe some sort of sensible compromise could be found. The comments in this thread make it pretty clear it’s not the pro-gun control folks being unreasonable about this.
Well, some of them are but your unwillingness to join in the debate ensures that the most unreasonable pro-gun control voices will have undue influence in the debate.
14 Likes
. . . as does yours. You seem to have completely glossed over Sen. Feinstein, the primary advocate of gun control in the Senate. . . who, BTW, has a concealed-carry permit. I keep forgetting: SOME animals are MORE EQUAL than others. . .
2 Likes
A quote specific to the assault weapon ban, not all guns.
Piers Morgan said he wanted zero kids killed by guns. So? The level of reading into that quote in the article was masterful mind reading.
He was advocating registration, not confiscation. He has no special insight into Obama’s policies or plans as a result of being a member of a city council. There is no slippery slope from registration to confiscation.
None of those quotes suggest any kind of grand conspiracy nor do they represent the general positions outlined by gun safety advocates as goals.
16 Likes
It absolutely is. You are calling people “antis” whereas it is their position, not they, that are anti-2A. You really should understand logical fallacies much better if you’re going to make a foray into a debate topic as fraught as this one.
I am quite clearly attacking nether you, nor your position, but the rhetoric with which you express it. Again, effective argumentation is required in thorny subjects as this one.
That’s right, you ignored the substantive part of my debate and instead attacked the piece I quite clearly called tangential. Your defensiveness, poor rhetorical skills, and inability to argue properly and coherently do more harm to our shared position than help it. Please stand down.
16 Likes
Ahh, yes. You are demanding I educate you on everything involved, because you are to lazy to bother to actually research this subject yourself.
I’ve pointed you in the direction of the required reading. Go read it as you appear to be completely clueless about this issue in general.
- we dont live in that world
- regulation isn’t about perfect solutions
- imperfection does not equal “without merit”
your seem to be very black and white on these issues. Im not so sure it’s your percieved opponents who are in the extreme position.
Personally, I value guns as tools. Sadly, too many tools have guns.
This will change, government will be involved, and you will live a healthy happy life with almost all the guns you want in it.
Any imperfect solution is still a potentially viable solution
8 Likes
I never commented on that part as I had no issue with it.
So you are supporting every one in this thread fobbing the other side off as nut jobs? Despite there being a lot of it on the other side of the debate, you have only focused on me.
Rate of homicides doesn’t go down as gun ownership goes up.
(Looks like very little correlation at all.)
8 Likes
I am not demanding anything, I am giving you an opportunity to make your point and being called lazy for being willing to listen to you.
You’re a gem.
6 Likes
Yet you are not familiar with the works of Jeff Cooper and get insulted when some one suggests him to you as relevant reading on a subject?
