-
12-17-2012, 11:18 PM
#106
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by daily
context. you have to read the first paragraph first then read the second in the context of the first.
Look I know you're upset your right to have a gun is being threatened but falling back into the cliche right wing gun sniffing nutjob isin't helping you. I'm a gun owner also but I can say you're doing nothing but a disservice to the topic with your immature sniping and in reality actually making the argument for gun control stronger. Seriously the thought of somebody like you owning gun is frightening
The first paragraph simply explains the phenomenon, it does not change the bottom line: gun control does not positively correlate with reduced murder rates.
As for the rest...you know how you know when somebody has lost a debate? They start making personal attacks instead of addressing the issue.
-
12-17-2012, 11:27 PM
#107
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
Of course you can't prove causality,but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.
This is where you are wrong. The purpose of gun control is to reduce the crime rate.
We don't legislate speed limits for the sake of forcing people to drive a certain speed. We legislate speed limits to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by speeding.
We don't legislate against drunk driving for the sake of preventing people driving under the influence. We legislate against drunk driving to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by driving under the influence.
We ban people from shooting off fireworks in their backyards because we simply don't want people shooting fireworks in their backyard. We ban this because shooting fireworks off in your back yard has a high probability of causing accident or injury.
The bottom line of legislation is to reduce the body count.
-
12-17-2012, 11:37 PM
#108
cereal killah
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
Of course you can't prove causality, but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.
That's the problem with the study. It's comparing gun control to murder rate as a whole described by all forms of murder from strangulation to stabbings and concluding that gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by strangulation.
Or as they cite themselves Russia has the strictest gun control but the highest murder rate but then admit that Russia has always had a high murder rate even before strict gun controls were put in place.
What they study doesn't touch on is the effects gun control has or hasn't had on murder by guns and that's what tighter controls are aimed at. You're never going to stop murder BUT you can try and stop these mass killings and limiting the choice of weaponry.
I said it before. It's amazing that migrating birds are protected more by what type of weapon and ammunition can be used to kill than humans are
Last edited by daily; 12-17-2012 at 11:39 PM.
-
12-17-2012, 11:37 PM
#109
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by bmulls
This is where you are wrong. The purpose of gun control is to reduce the crime rate.
We don't legislate speed limits for the sake of forcing people to drive a certain speed. We legislate speed limits to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by speeding.
We don't legislate against drunk driving for the sake of preventing people driving under the influence. We legislate against drunk driving to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by driving under the influence.
We ban people from shooting off fireworks in their backyards because we simply don't want people shooting fireworks in their backyard. We ban this because shooting fireworks off in your back yard has a high probability of causing accident or injury.
The bottom line of legislation is to reduce the body count.
I still don't see how you come to that conclusion.
We control the distribution of guns to prevent unstable people from committing crimes or killing people with guns. Why does gun control include people that are killed by knives, blunt objects, or any other type of murder?
Last edited by shlver; 12-17-2012 at 11:41 PM.
-
12-17-2012, 11:40 PM
#110
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by daily
That's the problem with the study. It's comparing gun control to murder rate as a whole described by all forms of murder from strangulation to stabbings and concluding that gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by strangulation.
Or as they cite themselves Russia has the strictest gun control but the highest murder rate but then admit that Russia has always had a high murder rate even before strict gun controls were put in place.
What they study doesn't touch on is the effects gun control has or hasn't had on murder by guns and that's what tighter controls are aimed at. You're never going to stop murder BUT you can try and stop these mass killings and limiting the choice of weaponry.
Yeah, I didn't even bother reading the study, because the problem of crime is so intractable and influenced by society and culture that gun control cannot have a significant impact on the total crime rate but you can limit a very effective tool of murder.
Last edited by shlver; 12-17-2012 at 11:42 PM.
-
12-17-2012, 11:54 PM
#111
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
I still don't see how you come to that conclusion.
We control the distribution of guns to prevent unstable people from committing crimes or killing people with guns. Why does gun control include people that are killed by knives, blunt objects, or any other type of murder?
Let me pose it to you this way:
If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?
This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.
And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?
Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.
If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.
-
12-18-2012, 12:02 AM
#112
cereal killah
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by bmulls
Let me pose it to you this way:
If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?
This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.
And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?
Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.
If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.
It doesn't matter. If gun control saves one kids life it was worth it.
If you don't see that then there's nothing to say
-
12-18-2012, 12:08 AM
#113
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by daily
It doesn't matter. If gun control saves one kids life it was worth it.
If you don't see that then there's nothing to say
Childish argument. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats? If we can save even 1 kids life by banning these things it must be done, right?
-
12-18-2012, 12:11 AM
#114
Meats Don't Clash
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by bmulls
Childish argument. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats? If we can save even 1 kids life by banning these things it must be done, right?
You accuse someone of making a childish argument, then say THAT?
Alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats are not designed to kill human beings.
-
12-18-2012, 12:18 AM
#115
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by bmulls
Let me pose it to you this way:
If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?
This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.
And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?
Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.
If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.
That is not true. The body count and the total crime rate are two different things. Stop trying to conflate the two. The whole point of gun control is regulating a tool that is designed to kill. Using statistics and the large picture to justify less regulation so you can play with weapons is awfully selfish. Why would you not want tighter control on something as potentially as dangerous as guns?
-
12-18-2012, 12:21 AM
#116
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by RaininThrees
You accuse someone of making a childish argument, then say THAT?
Alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats are not designed to kill human beings.
Sorry, wrong.
A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile is aimed at a target, a deer or a human is up to the person pulling the trigger. Alcohol is designed to inebriate the user. Whether or not that person decides to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill an innocent person is up to them. We don't blame the alcohol for drunk driving deaths, we blame the person driving the car.
99.999% of guns will be used for target shooting and hunting. How can a gun be "designed to kill people" when it is used for that purpose less than .001% of the time?
-
12-18-2012, 12:22 AM
#117
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by bmulls
Sorry, wrong.
A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile is aimed at a target, a deer or a human is up to the person pulling the trigger. Alcohol is designed to inebriate the user. Whether or not that person decides to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill an innocent person is up to them. We don't blame the alcohol for drunk driving deaths, we blame the person driving the car.
99.999% of guns will be used for target shooting and hunting. How can a gun be "designed to kill people" when it is used for that purpose less than .001% of the time?
No. The original purpose of a gun was to kill. Nice try though.
-
12-18-2012, 12:22 AM
#118
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Originally Posted by shlver
That is not true. The body count and the total crime rate are two different things. Stop trying to conflate the two. The whole point of gun control is regulating a tool that is designed to kill. Using statistics and the large picture to justify less regulation so you can play with weapons is awfully selfish. Why would you not want tighter control on something as potentially as dangerous as guns?
Using statistics and the large picture to justify getting drunk is awfully selfish. Why would you not support prohibition on something as potentially as dangerous as alcohol?
-
12-18-2012, 12:26 AM
#119
NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
It's not a ban on all guns. Just one that serve no purpose to the general population.
-
12-18-2012, 12:28 AM
#120
Re: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill
Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|