50 Shot, 7 Dead in Chicago over holiday weekend

[Southside]

Normal weekend in my hometown sadly..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/violence-mars-chicago-holiday-weekend-50-reportedly-injured/story?id=24446308

For all you guys screaming guns need to be taken away or regulated, Chicago is a prime example why none of that will work. Its been so bad here that its not even front page news anymore, waking up and hearing that 20 people were shot overnight isn't a shock to me anymore. You might think that its just in the impoverished neighborhoods where the gangs have a high presence but it's spreading into neighborhoods that never have seen homicides before. Some are even calling that the governor call the National Guard in to try to keep the peace.

I honestly don't know what can be done..I see people like Jesse Jackson doing "peace marches" all day long but that really isn't going to change anything unfortunately.

Gun violence was never a problem to mainstream America until it started effecting the Suburban/Rural areas

[Gamma Male]

Combating poverty and ending the war on drugs would lessen gun violence like this drastically.

[Freckles]

This proves that gun control won't work. These guys will get guns anyway but their victims will have nothing to defend themselves. I agree with the above post. They need to get them off the streets. I'm sorry you have to live in a place like that.

[CosmicNoodle]

Combating poverty and ending the war on drugs would lessen gun violence like this drastically.

Exactly, the problem is not only with the avalibility of guns, but the social issues that cause people to use them in the way that they do.

[Gamma Male]

Exactly, the problem is not only with the avalibility of guns, but the social issues that cause people to use them in the way that they do.

^^^^Spot fucking on. Instead of putting a bandaid on the whole issue, why not combat the source of gun violence, social inequality, directly? Ending the war on drugs and regulating a legal drug market would put the cartels and gangs out of business, and raising the minimum wage and improving the living conditions of potential gang members would drastically reduce the incentive for gangs to form and for teenagers to get involved in crime. While I'm not opposed to most forms of gun control, those two things seem like they'd be way more effective than any gun control measure.

[lijrobert]

This proves that gun control won't work. These guys will get guns anyway but their victims will have nothing to defend themselves. I agree with the above post. They need to get them off the streets. I'm sorry you have to live in a place like that.
Wait, but what gun control do to we really already have. All gun control efforts, besides in a few states, have been stopped from going through congress for the past decades. Also, this story doesn't "prove" anything. I don't think taking away guns is the answer (rather a registry and tightened control so that crazies can't get the guns.), but these measures aren't in place, let alone measures preventing people from getting guns. This story probably, in fact, disproves your argument. These people probably could have had guns, but they were still hurt by gun violence.

Exactly, the problem is not only with the avalibility of guns, but the social issues that cause people to use them in the way that they do.

I agree with you completely. We're really targeting the symptoms rather than the illness. Keeping the fever down is very important, but it's better to get rid of the flu.

[xXoblivionXx]

Oh boy :(

[lijrobert]

For all you guys screaming guns need to be taken away or regulated, Chicago is a prime example why none of that will work.
I don't really know how you can say that, when it's never really been tried. Again, I personally just think all guns should just be harder to get (imagine trying to take away a type of gun now) especially by those unfit to carry a weapon. It's just too damn easy to get guns now. In some states you can legally just trade guns for cash without ever informing the government. If you did that with a car, you would have trouble on your hands fast. It shouldn't be harder to get a car than to get a gun (the problem isn't with the cars). Really what would be best would be to address the problems inherent in the system (poverty, drug violence, etc.), but increased gun regulation is also important.

[Harry Smith]

This proves that gun control won't work. These guys will get guns anyway but their victims will have nothing to defend themselves. I agree with the above post. They need to get them off the streets. I'm sorry you have to live in a place like that.


Normal weekend in my hometown sadly..
http://abcnews.go.com/US/violence-mars-chicago-holiday-weekend-50-reportedly-injured/story?id=24446308

For all you guys screaming guns need to be taken away or regulated, Chicago is a prime example why none of that will work. Its been so bad here that its not even front page news anymore, waking up and hearing that 20 people were shot overnight isn't a shock to me anymore. You might think that its just in the impoverished neighborhoods where the gangs have a high presence but it's spreading into neighborhoods that never have seen homicides before. Some are even calling that the governor call the National Guard in to try to keep the peace.Gun violence was never a problem to mainstream America until it started effecting the Suburban/Rural areas

This shows we need Federal gun control


Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.


^^^^Spot fucking on. Instead of putting a bandaid on the whole issue, why not combat the source of gun violence, social inequality, directly? Ending the war on drugs and regulating a legal drug market would put the cartels and gangs out of business, and raising the minimum wage and improving the living conditions of potential gang members would drastically reduce the incentive for gangs to form and for teenagers to get involved in crime. While I'm not opposed to most forms of gun control, those two things seem like they'd be way more effective than any gun control measure.

Lol Americans will never embrace anything close to Socialism-look how they reacted to ObamaCare which wasn't even close to Socialism. They'd rather watch their country burn than try and introduce socialist policies which could help reduce social inequality.

[lijrobert]

Lol Americans will never embrace anything close to Socialism-look how they reacted to ObamaCare which wasn't even close to Socialism. They'd rather watch their country burn than try and introduce socialist policies which could help reduce social inequality.

So wait, this is your response to people who want social reform. I really think your attacking the wrong people...

[Harry Smith]

So wait, this is your response to people who want social reform. I really think your attacking the wrong people...

it's realism-your much more likely to be able to pass federal firearm laws than change the economic nature of the US. It's great saying that we need social reform but that's highly unlikely where as gun reform. Raising minimum wage and job retrospectives wouldn't stop school shootings, and it wouldn't stop domestic violence cases.

[lijrobert]

it's realism-your much more likely to be able to pass federal firearm laws than change the economic nature of the US. It's great saying that we need social reform but that's highly unlikely where as gun reform. Raising minimum wage and job retrospectives wouldn't stop school shootings, and it wouldn't stop domestic violence cases.

I agree with you. The US is unlikely to change all at once. We need to take little steps. I also think we need gun control.

[Miserabilia]

For all you guys screaming guns need to be taken away or regulated, Chicago is a prime example why none of that will work. Its been so bad here that its not even front page news anymore, waking up and hearing that 20 people were shot overnight isn't a shock to me anymore.

Maybe it's just me but doesn't that seem to support taking guns away?

[Dennis98]

Sadly ... But , gun control is not problem . Because , Serbia is second country in the world by gun number per one citizen , so basicly in Serbia should be civil war every day , but it is not .. It is pecaful country now after wars in Yugoslavia , and guns are legacy of previous war because Yugoslavia was 6th strongest country in the world during 1980s , and 3th in Europe at the time ... After wars many people have kept their guns from war ... And today on 10 Serbian citizens , 7 of them have some firearm ( some have more than 2 pieces of firearms ) . Same situation is in all regions where was war . But , critical persons in shootings like that in Chicago are people with psychosis , aggresive persons with autism , psychopaths ( I am psychopath xD ) , sociopaths , extremists , people who work with drugs and most important , soldiers that came recently in their country from some war , usually that kind of persons have Vietnamese sindrom , so they can be very dangerous ... Gun control , can not change situation , but police should always have evidence about thoose kinds of persons that I mentioned and they should always follow their actions in public ... Only on that way you can stop slaughtering every day ... My father has 6 pieces of firearms , although he didnt participated in previous war in Yugoslavia ... He has 3 pistols and 3 rifles ...

[Vlerchan]

This proves that gun control won't work.
Um.. no.

It proves that if you try restrict access to guns within one city but make no attempt to restrict the flow of (legal) guns into that city from sources outside of the city then you're not going to get anywhere. I'm actually unsure how anyone might believe that such a scheme could work.

[phuckphace]

it's obvious that demographics play a critical role in the safety of widespread gun ownership. obviously it's not going to end well in dystopian mega-slums like Chicago or Detroit. but restricting guns from ordinary middle class people who want to defend themselves is going after the wrong people. we'd gain a larger reduction in violent crime by nuking Chicago, Detroit, LA, and NYC (someone get Putin on the red phone) than we would with a gun ban.

[Southside]

Maybe it's just me but doesn't that seem to support taking guns away?

Bro it's no gun shops in a the city limits of Chicago and up until a couple months ago it was a ban on possession of a handgun in the city. Ironically, most of the murders are committed with handguns.

It starts at home and in the school system, 50+ schools in Chicago have been closed in the last year, most of them in majority African American and Hispanic areas that need them most. None of the schools on the majority White northside of the city are being closed. See the problem there?

[Dennis98]

As I said , America and other Western countries should have closed immgrant policy , but you have open , and so , many radical Islamists , Zionists , Nationalists , Sociopats and other settled in USA and other countries with good standard , so it is just matter of time when will someone of them expolde inside and do something ... You should have closed immigrant policy , only with benefits for educated people that want to live and contribute to that country ...

[Miserabilia]

Bro it's no gun shops in a the city limits of Chicago and up until a couple months ago it was a ban on possession of a handgun in the city. Ironically, most of the murders are committed with handguns.

It starts at home and in the school system, 50+ schools in Chicago have been closed in the last year, most of them in majority African American and Hispanic areas that need them most. None of the schools on the majority White northside of the city are being closed. See the problem there?

I didn't really understand the second part of your post? What exactly starts at the school system? :what:

Anyway making guns illegal would still help as most crimes are commited with getting guns from other people who legaly posess them (friends and family often.)

[Melodic]

Oh wow, my family lives there and was out celebrating.

[Stronk Serb]

Sadly ... But , gun control is not problem . Because , Serbia is second country in the world by gun number per one citizen , so basicly in Serbia should be civil war every day , but it is not .. It is pecaful country now after wars in Yugoslavia , and guns are legacy of previous war because Yugoslavia was 6th strongest country in the world during 1980s , and 3th in Europe at the time ... After wars many people have kept their guns from war ... And today on 10 Serbian citizens , 7 of them have some firearm ( some have more than 2 pieces of firearms ) . Same situation is in all regions where was war . But , critical persons in shootings like that in Chicago are people with psychosis , aggresive persons with autism , psychopaths ( I am psychopath xD ) , sociopaths , extremists , people who work with drugs and most important , soldiers that came recently in their country from some war , usually that kind of persons have Vietnamese sindrom , so they can be very dangerous ... Gun control , can not change situation , but police should always have evidence about thoose kinds of persons that I mentioned and they should always follow their actions in public ... Only on that way you can stop slaughtering every day ... My father has 6 pieces of firearms , although he didnt participated in previous war in Yugoslavia ... He has 3 pistols and 3 rifles ...

I am from Serbia and gun control is pretty tight. In theory every second citozen could have a gun. You can get pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns with a permit. The reason we don't have that much gun crimes is because we don't hand them out to people infit to carry them. You can't just walk into a store and come out with an M60, locked and loaded. Unless you have some serious connections, you won't be able to get an MP5 even. My grand uncle got a permit for an MP5 but returned it after a few months because it wasn't practical for home defence, so he got a pistol. The USA needs gin control on a federal level if they want to stop this. I can just take a trip to Arizona, buy an AK-47 with drum magazines, dissasemble it and drive to Chicago and woosh! Another weapon has entered the circle.

[bob97]

Oh boy :(

As I said , America and other Western countries should have closed immgrant policy , but you have open , and so , many radical Islamists , Zionists , Nationalists , Sociopats and other settled in USA and other countries with good standard , so it is just matter of time when will someone of them expolde inside and do something ... You should have closed immigrant policy , only with benefits for educated people that want to live and contribute to that country ...

This has nothing to do with foreigners. That could also be a problem but they certainly aren't the cause for this. This is a problem within our country that has been a problem for years. And why is it a matter of time until one of them explodes inside and so something. That's one of the most stupid things I've heard in a while

[Southside]

I didn't really understand the second part of your post? What exactly starts at the school system? :what:

Anyway making guns illegal would still help as most crimes are commited with getting guns from other people who legaly posess them (friends and family often.)


Don't you think all the gang members committing these crimes were failed by the education system at some point?

I don't think you really understand the situation, as I said Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America yet people are getting killed like its a warzone out in the streets. Marijuana is illegal but people still find away to smuggle, cultivate, and sell it right? If guns were illegal at a federal level this would happen to, its too easy to get that shit in through Mexico/Central America.

America is too big and has too many guns to track for a federal ban to even be partially successful

[Stronk Serb]

Don't you think all the gang members committing these crimes were failed by the education system at some point?

I don't think you really understand the situation, as I said Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America yet people are getting killed like its a warzone out in the streets. Marijuana is illegal but people still find away to smuggle, cultivate, and sell it right? If guns were illegal at a federal level this would happen to, its too easy to get that shit in through Mexico/Central America.

America is too big and has too many guns to track for a federal ban to even be partially successful

It would be successful if someone actually enforced it. Also tighter border control is needed.

[anrigirl]

This is so sad!! The world is getter sicker by the minute!!

[thatcountrykid]

I am from Serbia and gun control is pretty tight. In theory every second citozen could have a gun. You can get pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns with a permit. The reason we don't have that much gun crimes is because we don't hand them out to people infit to carry them. You can't just walk into a store and come out with an M60, locked and loaded. Unless you have some serious connections, you won't be able to get an MP5 even. My grand uncle got a permit for an MP5 but returned it after a few months because it wasn't practical for home defence, so he got a pistol. The USA needs gin control on a federal level if they want to stop this. I can just take a trip to Arizona, buy an AK-47 with drum magazines, dissasemble it and drive to Chicago and woosh! Another weapon has entered the circle.

You need to do tons of paperwork to buy m60s or short barreled rifles or anything of the sort. Fully automatic guns require months of paperwork

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Another reason why I never feel safe leaving my house, or anywhere. There are lunatics with guns and knives and baseball bats everywhere, and they all want to kill innocent people, like me and you...and .... *starts sobbing out of fear*

Seriously though, the fact that there are weapons out there, as well as people out looking for innocents to murder, gives me a nervous breakdown. One of the major flaws of 'Murica.

[Stronk Serb]

You need to do tons of paperwork to buy m60s or short barreled rifles or anything of the sort. Fully automatic guns require months of paperwork

It depends on the state. In some states you can buy as much guns as you want but in some you need a crap ton of paperwork. You can't get them here unless you have a connection. They also ask your neighbours, psychologicaly examine you... It takes months to get a pistol. They do it so that mostly people fit for owning them actually have them.

[thatcountrykid]

It depends on the state. In some states you can buy as much guns as you want but in some you need a crap ton of paperwork. You can't get them here unless you have a connection. They also ask your neighbours, psychologicaly examine you... It takes months to get a pistol. They do it so that mostly people fit for owning them actually have them.

every state requires paper work. I have yet to see that a state that doesn't. Every one requires a background check.

[JoeB93772]

Im sorry but its not the gun its the person behind the gun thats where these issues arias

[Harry Smith]

Im sorry but its not the gun its the person behind the gun thats where these issues arias

So there's no link between high gun ownership and high gun related murders?

[JoeB93772]

So there's no link between high gun ownership and high gun related murders?

I think there is a link between the people who own the gun and the way they use it and no the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

[Harry Smith]

and no the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

Right wing crap, that's like saying the only way to stop a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. You have something called a police force

A gun is 22 times more likely to be used to murder, injure or main someone than it is to be used in self defense. 22 times more likely!

[JoeB93772]

Right wing crap, that's like saying the only way to stop a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. You have something called a police force

A gun is 22 times more likely to be used to murder, injure or main someone than it is to be used in self defense. 22 times more likely!

Oh my god im so scared!! Maybe i should buy a gun then im 22 times more likely to kill someone oh my gosh. Whered u get that from Liberal

[Vlerchan]

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

God-dang libruls and their god-dang facts.

[DairyFarmer]

It seems to me that none of Ya'll know what the heck you're talking about when it comes to gun control.

-We need gun control. My answer: NO. If you make it harder for legally carrying citizens to get guns, then it leaves the public at greater risk because..... Wait for it..... No matter what the law is, criminals will still get their hands on guns, no matter what. Again, criminals are called criminals because they do NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. God, you people need to get your heads out of the gutter.

Harry Smith, it seems that you've spent too much time on the internet reading left wing propaganda, and reading idealistic material. We may have something called the "police force", but the average police response is 10 minutes. That's enough time to hide, get found, shot, and the criminal gets away. And you said a gun is 22 times more likely to kill someone then to be used for home defense? Where did you get that "fact"?

I don't know why we tend to blame the guns for these incidents. I'm going to give you guys a scenario, and without making "if" "ands" or "buts" or give excuses, I would like you to reason here.

Okay, a homemade, home built AR-15 with a 16" barrel, mid length handguard, loaded with a full 30 round PMAG is placed on a kitchen table in a house in the middle of chicago. The house is locked, no one lives there, and no one knows it's there. So what does the gun do? It sits there for years and does nothing. Okay so if anyone is still following me, what have I been saying so far? The gun has no use until a human uses it. It's not the gun that's the problem, it's the nut-jobs that get their hands on these guns that are the problem. You people keep attacking a gun as if it's the biggest cause for death. Actually, Medical Malpractice causes more deaths than all sporting rifles in the United States alone, so I'm going to put this out there, and say ObamaCare is more deadly than an AR-15. Have a nice day

[DairyFarmer]

It depends on the state. In some states you can buy as much guns as you want but in some you need a crap ton of paperwork. You can't get them here unless you have a connection. They also ask your neighbours, psychologicaly examine you... It takes months to get a pistol. They do it so that mostly people fit for owning them actually have them.

Um, to get a fully auto firearm in the USA, you have to go through the feds. No, every state has the same paperwork to get a fully auto firearm. Not only do you need paperwork, you need about $12,000

[DairyFarmer]

So there's no link between high gun ownership and high gun related murders?

No there's not. Out here where I live in Ohio, I couldn't tell you who doesn't own a gun, I could only tell you who does. No one around here gets robbed, shot, or killed. Maybe, just maybe you should really leave

[Stronk Serb]

Um, to get a fully auto firearm in the USA, you have to go through the feds. No, every state has the same paperwork to get a fully auto firearm. Not only do you need paperwork, you need about $12,000

And what about pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns?

[DairyFarmer]

And what about pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns?

If you buy from a gun show, you do not need paperwork, but you do get a background check at gun shows. To purchase firearms from a store, you need to go through paperwork and a background check.

[Stronk Serb]

If you buy from a gun show, you do not need paperwork, but you do get a background check at gun shows. To purchase firearms from a store, you need to go through paperwork and a background check.

What paperwork exactly and what background checks? Here you need a confirmation that you don't have a criminal record and if you served in the army or police, citizenship and so on. Background checks involve psychological exams, interviewing your family and neighbours. You have to renew your licence every now and then.

[DairyFarmer]

What paperwork exactly and what background checks? Here you need a confirmation that you don't have a criminal record and if you served in the army or police, citizenship and so on. Background checks involve psychological exams, interviewing your family and neighbours. You have to renew your licence every now and then.

They literally look into any historical psychological or mental illness, if you spent any time in jail or prison, and they also see if you were in the military. It sounds like our background checks are similar

[Vlerchan]

It seems to me that none of Ya'll know what the heck you're talking about when it comes to gun control.
Mhmm.

If you make it harder for legally carrying citizens to get guns ...
It should be noted that historically gun-control advocates have called for:
making it difficult for mentally unstable and previously jailed individuals to purchase weapons, and
making it more difficult to access high powered weapons
which does to extend making it impossible/quite difficult to access hand-guns, etc.

You're just misrepresenting the position. I'm not addressing the rest of your argument on this basis.

And you said a gun is 22 times more likely to kill someone then to be used for home defense? Where did you get that "fact"?
I referenced two sources.

I don't know why we tend to blame the guns for these incidents.
I don't "blame" the gun.

I recognise that a gun-use is a cheap, efficient and relativily detatched means of murdering someone.

... it's the nut-jobs that get their hands on these guns that are the problem.
I agree it's more of problem, which is why I tend to lean more towards programs inacted to combat (for example) poverty, a source of gun violence, than controlling guns. This does not mean the currents system of gun control in the US could not be improved in order to further cull gun violence.

... so I'm going to put this out there, and say ObamaCare is more deadly than an AR-15.
This is not only irrelevant, but nonsensical.

No there's not.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

---

Have a nice day
You too c:

[DairyFarmer]

In your little link, I do not see any evidence whatsoever, I just see statements. And no, the ObamaCare argument is not irrelevant, think about it. ObamaCare is now forcing more doctors to take on more patients when the patients can't afford the health care anyways. More patients, more medical malpractice. Isn't that the argument you're making with guns? More guns more homicide?

[Harry Smith]

Lol at saying Obamacare is worse than gun violence, did you also know that Obama is a muslim spy sent to destroy America? If you say I read left wing propaganda I'll take that as a compliment-the gun advocated on this thread haven't once used any evidence in their arguments. Make of that what you want

In your little link, I do not see any evidence whatsoever, I just see statements. And no, the ObamaCare argument is not irrelevant, think about it. ObamaCare is now forcing more doctors to take on more patients when the patients can't afford the health care anyways. More patients, more medical malpractice. Isn't that the argument you're making with guns? More guns more homicide?

You can't blame Obama for this, Republicans make me laugh. I'm sure Vlerchan will have fun with this

[DairyFarmer]

Lol at saying Obamacare is worse than gun violence, did you also know that Obama is a muslim spy sent to destroy America? If you say I read left wing propaganda I'll take that as a compliment-the gun advocated on this thread haven't once used any evidence in their arguments. Make of that what you want



You can't blame Obama for this, Republicans make me laugh. I'm sure Vlerchan will have fun with this

Was I blaming Obama for this? No? You're doing what any left winger would do, and you're putting words in my mouth to try and make my argument sound bad, when in fact you know I'm making a decent argument against you. Oh, I haven't used any evidence? You sure haven't.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/01/18/politifact-yes-more-people-murdered-with-knives-body-parts-and-blunt-objects-than-rifles-in-2011/

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-control-myths

[Harry Smith]

Was I blaming Obama for this? No? You're doing what any left winger would do, and you're putting words in my mouth to try and make my argument sound bad, when in fact you know I'm making a decent argument against you. Oh, I haven't used any evidence? You sure haven't.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/01/18/politifact-yes-more-people-murdered-with-knives-body-parts-and-blunt-objects-than-rifles-in-2011/

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-control-myths

Those sources are utter wank, lets have a quick look at the 'evidence' you've provided

Source 3 is not only biased (which most are tbh) but it also cities something that is simply untrue-for example the source states

Numerous studies have shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall suicide rate.

That's a flat out lie

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/

The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6)

Source 2 fails to deal with the issue-high capacity assault rifles that hold 30 rounds aren't being banned for the high amount of deaths per year but for the instant effect they can have. One man with an assault rifle can kill 22 children in one hour-can a man with a club?

Source 1 again tells a lie

more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

[DairyFarmer]

Those sources are utter wank, lets have a quick look at the 'evidence' you've provided

Source 3 is not only biased (which most are tbh) but it also cities something that is simply untrue-for example the source states



That's a flat out lie

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/



Source 2 fails to deal with the issue-high capacity assault rifles that hold 30 rounds aren't being banned for the high amount of deaths per year but for the instant effect they can have. One man with an assault rifle can kill 22 children in one hour-can a man with a club?

Source 1 again tells a lie

And you said my source was biased? CBS gave NO evidence in that article, which makes your argument even more irrelevant. And here we go again with "assault rifles". Do you even know the definition of an assault rifle? Why does it matter if it's a high capacity magazine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc

Before you get into "high capacity magazines" and how they can cause more deaths, watch this. One the firearms used at Columbine was the Hi Point Carbine. It's a has a ten round magazine.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/04/09/multiple-students-reported-stabbed-at-franklin-regional-high-school/

There. 24 people wounded in a stabbing at Franklin Regional High School. 26 were killed at Sandy Hook.

The problem with your argument is, you have no factual or statistical evidence to back it up, and when I give statistical evidence, you say that it's "bias". Maybe you should stop while you're behind

[Harry Smith]

QUOTE=DairyFarmer;2873791]

There. 24 people wounded in a stabbing at Franklin Regional High School. 22 were killed at Sandy Hook.

[/QUOTE]

If you read what I said- not only biased (which most are tbh)

Lol do you know the difference between wounded and killed?


The problem with your argument is, you have no factual or statistical evidence to back it up,

Another lie. Look at my last post. I citied two sources-look I'll even copy them again. Do you withdraw the claim that I don't use evidence?

The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6)

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

[Harry Smith]

double post removed

[DairyFarmer]

QUOTE=DairyFarmer;2873791]

There. 24 people wounded in a stabbing at Franklin Regional High School. 22 were killed at Sandy Hook.



If you read what I said-

Lol do you know the difference between wounded and killed?



Another lie. Look at my last post. I citied two sources-look I'll even copy them again. Do you withdraw the claim that I don't use evidence?[/QUOTE]

Yes I do know the difference between wounded and killed, but you're not acknowledging that this kid in the hallway inflicted damage on the same amount of people in a quarter of the time, with a knife. And, I will ask again, do you know what an Assault Rifle is? Your sources say that with the increase in the amount of gun ownership that there are more homicides, but how many gun owners actually misuse their firearms? Pick up the pace! You're still behind!

I'm going to debunk your little statistic with an FBI statistic that was just issued this year.

http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/2014/02/20/fbi-report-shows-violent-crime-decreased-as-gun-sales-increased/

Mind you, the gun scare happened at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, so this proves that with an increase in sales of firearms, crime has decreased

[Harry Smith]

Yes I do know the difference between wounded and killed, but you're not acknowledging that this kid in the hallway inflicted damage on the same amount of people in a quarter of the time, with a knife. And, I will ask again, do you know what an Assault Rifle is? Your sources say that with the increase in the amount of gun ownership that there are more homicides, but how many gun owners actually misuse their firearms? Pick up the pace! You're still behind!

I'm going to debunk your little statistic with an FBI statistic that was just issued this year.

http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/2014/02/20/fbi-report-shows-violent-crime-decreased-as-gun-sales-increased/


Why did you state that I don't use any evidence/numbers when I quite clearly did? Do you withdraw that?

[DairyFarmer]

Why did you state that I don't use any evidence/numbers when I quite clearly did? Do you withdraw that?

No I do not, because you didn't give a source, just numbers. Where did you get this statistic. I will ask one last time, do you know what an assault rifle is?

[Vlerchan]

In your little link, I do not see any evidence whatsoever, I just see statements.
"Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64." is the name of the report.

I linked to a summary because I didn't think you'd want to purchase a book. I can look for a PDF or something later if you want.

And no, the ObamaCare argument is not irrelevant
Yes, it is.

I don't care what happens as a result of the US's awful medical system when we're supposed to be discussing gun control in the US. Further, it's not Obamacare that causes the deaths, which is why I labelled your claim nonsensical.

More patients, more medical malpractice.
Please present verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

Isn't that the argument you're making with guns?
I was presenting empirical evidence supporting the claim that a higher concentration of guns in an area leads to a higher number of gun murders.

I don't care if this is an across-the-board trend either. It should be noted however that 45000 people die per year as a result of not having healthcare in the US. (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)

[Harry Smith]

No I do not, because you didn't give a source, just numbers.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph

Do you know withdraw the claim that I don't use evidence? if you wanted to check (and for the future) copy and paste the text into google and see what comes up. That's how I cross reference Vlerchans stuff

I will ask one last time, do you know what an assault rifle is?

Comes from WW2-germans had the first decent one. A weapon in laymans terms that brigdes the gap between the Rifle (German uses 7.92 on a Kar 98) and the smaller machine pistol (9 parrabelum) I use the rough example for it-has to fire automatic, use a detachable magazine of some sort and have a range of more than 300 metres. I love how the guns nuts on this forum assume that A) I have no experience with guns because I'm British B) I have no experience with guns because I'm a left leaning

[DairyFarmer]

"Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64." is the name of the report.

I linked to a summary because I didn't think you'd want to purchase a book. I can look for a PDF or something later if you want.


Yes, it is.

I don't care what happens as a result of the US's awful medical system when we're supposed to be discussing gun control in the US. Further, it's not Obamacare that causes the deaths, which is why I labelled your claim nonsensical.


Please present verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.


I was presenting empirical evidence supporting the claim that a higher concentration of guns in an area leads to a higher number of gun murders.

I don't care if this is an across-the-board trend either. It should be noted however that 45000 people die per year as a result of not having healthcare in the US. (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/)

To the More Patients, more Malpractice, here you go.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815368

That wasn't even supposed to be an argument, I was just comparing that to your "more guns more homicide" statement.

Read this study

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

[DairyFarmer]

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph

Do you know withdraw the claim that I don't use evidence? if you wanted to check (and for the future) copy and paste the text into google and see what comes up. That's how I cross reference Vlerchans stuff



Comes from WW2-germans had the first decent one. A weapon in laymans terms that brigdes the gap between the Rifle (German uses 7.92 on a Kar 98) and the smaller machine pistol (9 parrabelum) I use the rough example for it-has to fire automatic, use a detachable magazine of some sort and have a range of more than 300 metres. I love how the guns nuts on this forum assume that A) I have no experience with guns because I'm British B) I have no experience with guns because I'm a left leaning

Considering the Kar 98 was a bolt action rifle, it was not an assault rifle. And you said earlier that one of my sources was not acknowledging the issue about "Assault Rifles". The exact definition of an Assault Rifle is "Any rifle that has a firemode that can be switched between semi auto, and/or fully auto/burst. So what you were saying in your statement was that we are not addressing the issue on Assault Rifles, which are already banned here in the united states. That statement you gave about the WWII firearms made you seem even less knowledgeable on this subject.

[Vlerchan]

And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases
This is incorrect in regards to the US, the focus of our discussion.

I don't care what your biased, right-wing source has to say about Russia or Norway.

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original).
The evidence I presented stated there was no link between gun ownership and non-gun related murders in the US.

---

Your malpractice link didn't direct me anywhere relevent.

Please just quote the relevent. Thank you.

[Harry Smith]

Considering the Kar 98 was a bolt action rifle, it was not an assault rifle. .

Please quote where I said the Kar98 was an assault rifle-I clearly states that an assault rifle was something that bridged the gap between the rifle (Geuher 43 or K98) I did not state that the Kar98 is an assault rifle, and that's a fact. Your making Richard Nixon look like a clean political operator. I know my WW2 guns, and nowhere in my post did I state that the Kar 98 was an assault rifle. Stop lying

Comes from WW2-germans had the first decent one. A weapon in laymans terms that bridges the gap between the Rifle (German uses 7.92 on a Kar 98) and the smaller machine pistol (9 parrabelum)



I aswered your question on assault rifles-you didn't answer mine on your false lies. Do you withdraw the claim that I didn't use evidence in my previous arguments?

[DairyFarmer]

Please quote where I said the Kar98 was an assault rifle-I clearly states that an assault rifle was something that bridged the gap between the rifle (Geuher 43 or K98) I did not state that the Kar98 is an assault rifle, and that's a fact. Your making Richard Nixon look like a clean political operator. I know my WW2 guns

So do I ;) I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. And it's Gewehr 43.

And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases
This is incorrect in regards to the US, the focus of our discussion.

I don't care what your biased, right-wing source has to say about Russia or Norway.

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original).
The evidence I presented stated there was no link between gun ownership and non-gun related murders in the US.

---

Your malpractice link didn't direct me anywhere relevent.

Please just quote the relevent. Thank you.

I'm not giving you any more links, because you'll say that they're "bias". Maybe you should start accepting the truth instead of calling it "bias". Maybe you should quote the "relevant"


Merged. Please don't double post. ~StoppingTime

[Vlerchan]

Maybe you should start accepting the truth instead of calling it "bias".
I rejected it on another basis than "bias". Please read my posts fully before responding.

Maybe you should quote the "relevant".
I can't find it, which is why I asked you to quote it for me.

[DairyFarmer]

Now look where you lefties have taken this argument. Because I've now proved you wrong about your little Gun Control rants, you know are calling my sources bias and irrelevant because that's the only way you can steer the subject off of the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's something "relevant" for you!

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that's bias, because it says "FACT" :(

[Vlerchan]

Now look where you lefties have taken this argument. Because I've now proved you wrong about your little Gun Control rants, you know are calling my sources bias and irrelevant because that's the only way you can steer the subject off of the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's something "relevant" for you!
Lol.

I rejected your source because it was contrasting gun control and murders in different countries. I'm discussing America. It was irrelevant to what I was discussing. In regards to America what it proposed does not hold true.

If we were discussing gun control on an international level I would still however reject your source in that it doesn't equalize material conditions, which vary by area, like my source did, which makes it quite useless.

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that's bias, because it says "FACT"
As I said, I didn't reject your source on the basis that I suspected bias.

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating I did, because it just makes you look silly.

---

Would you mind quoting the part of your latest source that contradicts anything I said? Thank you.

[DairyFarmer]

Lol.

I rejected your source because it was contrasting gun control and murders in different countries. I'm discussing America. It was irrelevant to what I was discussing. In regards to America what it proposed does not hold true.

If we were discussing gun control on an international level I would still however reject your source in that it doesn't equalize material conditions, which vary by area, like my source did, which makes it quite useless.


As I said, I didn't reject your source on the basis that I suspected bias.

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating I did, because it just makes you look silly.

---

Would you mind quoting the part of your latest source that contradicts anything I said? Thank you.

Once again, you are steering off the actual conversation. You're the one looking silly here ;)

[Harry Smith]

Once again, you are steering off the actual conversation. You're the one looking silly here ;)

So do you think that the US has a gun problem?

[Vlerchan]

Once again, you are steering off the actual conversation. You're the one looking silly here ;)
If you say so.

---

I'm going to stop responding until you get back to addressing my points.

[DairyFarmer]

So do you think that the US has a gun problem?

No I think the US has a person problem. And Vlerchan, I could care less if you're going to respond again, because you have not proven any one of your points to be true, and you disregard my evidence

[Harry Smith]

No I think the US has a person problem.

So the fact Texas has more school shootings than the UK doesn't bother you?

[DairyFarmer]

So the fact Texas has more school shootings than the UK doesn't bother you?

Now I would LOVE to know where you got the evidence for that wild tale.... :lol:

[Harry Smith]

Now I would LOVE to know where you got the evidence for that wild tale.... :lol:

source is within this-don't judge on the fact it appears anti-gun. All the info within can be backed up by other sources e.g news, social media

http://www.stoptheshootings.org/state/TX

29 shootings in the State of Texas since 1992

1 in the UK (Dunblane)

[DairyFarmer]

I do not deny that. But, most of them have one or no fatalities. If you want to count all 29 of those shootings in the state of Texas, but California has had 69 shootings, leaving 86 dead, as opposed to texas having 17. California has the strictest gun laws out of all the states here in the US

[Harry Smith]

I do not deny that. But, most of them have one or no fatalities. If you want to count all 29 of those shootings in the state of Texas, but California has had 69 shootings, leaving 86 dead, as opposed to texas having 17. California has the strictest gun laws out of all the states here in the US

It's all about the Federal gun laws-major issues like this have always needed to be sorted at a Federal level (Slavery, abortion, civil rights etc) The problem is that guns are brought in from states with weak guns laws-California isn't an Island. Part of the reason why it's easy to smuggle something from Neveda into California rather than Mexico into California-there's no border of any force

[Vlerchan]

And Vlerchan, I could care less if you're going to respond again, because you have not proven any one of your points to be true, and you disregard my evidence
You have it the wrong way around.

And any impartial observer would back me up here.

[DairyFarmer]

It's all about the Federal gun laws-major issues like this have always needed to be sorted at a Federal level (Slavery, abortion, civil rights etc) The problem is that guns are brought in from states with weak guns laws-California isn't an Island. Part of the reason why it's easy to smuggle something from Neveda into California rather than Mexico into California-there's no border of any force

And do you have any evidence to back any of this up?

You have it the wrong way around.

And any impartial observer would back me up here.

Notice that no one is backing you up

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Lovelife090994]

Normal weekend in my hometown sadly..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/violence-mars-chicago-holiday-weekend-50-reportedly-injured/story?id=24446308

For all you guys screaming guns need to be taken away or regulated, Chicago is a prime example why none of that will work. Its been so bad here that its not even front page news anymore, waking up and hearing that 20 people were shot overnight isn't a shock to me anymore. You might think that its just in the impoverished neighborhoods where the gangs have a high presence but it's spreading into neighborhoods that never have seen homicides before. Some are even calling that the governor call the National Guard in to try to keep the peace.

I honestly don't know what can be done..I see people like Jesse Jackson doing "peace marches" all day long but that really isn't going to change anything unfortunately.

Gun violence was never a problem to mainstream America until it started effecting the Suburban/Rural areas

Chicago has so many murders a day it is sad and almost hopeless. Despite all the strict laws it still is a battleground when it comes to violence. Chicago is beautiful but bad too.

So there's no link between high gun ownership and high gun related murders?

Did you not hear of Serbia? And have you not realized how much bigger America is to your country? Have you any idea how hard it is to enforce federal laws that involve everyone across millions of square miles?

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[StoppingTime]

You have it the wrong way around.

And any impartial observer would back me up here.

*backs you up*


DairyFarmer, notice how Vlerchan said multiple times that you are falsely accusing him of saying something that he didn't. Then, notice how every time he says this, you ignore him and say he's steering the conversation off-topic. If anything, you'd be the one doing that for blatantly rejecting what he said to you multiple times. So if you're not going to respond appropriately and just selectively ignore posts/points, I'd recommend you find a more mature way of debating.

[DairyFarmer]

*backs you up*


DairyFarmer, notice how Vlerchan said multiple times that you are falsely accusing him of saying something that he didn't. Then, notice how every time he says this, you ignore him and say he's steering the conversation off-topic. If anything, you'd be the one doing that for blatantly rejecting what he said to you multiple times. So if you're not going to respond appropriately and just selectively ignore posts/points, I'd recommend you find a more mature way of debating.

And he is doing the same exact thing. Maybe you should look at this both ways. He's been ignoring a lot of my points and posts too. And you said I need to find a mature way of debating? Sounds like advice you should take at this moment

[Vlerchan]

He's been ignoring a lot of my points and posts too.
I outlined the reasons why I ignored your posts.

You then accused me of going off topic. Or lied about the basis of my rejection.

If you feel I've been unjust in rejecting your claims then you are free to address the points I made in regards to them, which you have thusfar failed to do.

---

Here's a recap of why I rejected your sources:

American Civil Rights Union:

I was discussing gun control with the US and provided empirical evidence supporting the claim that within the US a higher concentration of firearms within an area, when material conditions are accounted for, results in a higher number of gun-murders. Your evidence stated that at an international level the opposite occured, but I wasn't making claims at an international level.
I further rejected it because it did not claim to equalize material conditions, like my source did, which makes it functionally useless as far as our discussion goes. Once material conditions are (edit: roughly*, it's doesn't seem to make an effort to account for poverty, etc., though at least it makes an effort to draw countries of similar levels of economic development, unlike your source) equalized you'll also find yourself very much incorrect. (http://amjmed.org/new-research-in-ajm-guns-do-not-make-a-nation-safer/)
It also claimed that gun control advocates were intellectually dishonest because they usually only counted gun-deaths in their analysis, though I earlier produced evidence that there was no connection between murders that did not involve firearms and gun concentration in an area, once material conditions had been accounted for.

GunFacts:

It did not contradict anything I said.

---

Thank you, Steven, though I'm not sure if it was worth your time.

[DairyFarmer]

I outlined the reasons why I ignored your posts.

You then accused me of going off topic. Or lied about the basis of my rejection.

If you feel I've been unjust in rejecting your claims then you are free to address the points I made in regards to them, which you have thusfar failed to do.

---

Here's a recap of why I rejected your sources:

American Civil Rights Union:

I was discussing gun control with the US and provided empirical evidence supporting the claim that within the US a higher concentration of firearms within an area, when material conditions are accounted for, results in a higher number of gun-murders. Your evidence stated that at an international level the opposite occured, but I wasn't making claims at an international level.
I further rejected it because it did not claim to equalize material conditions, like my source did, which makes it functionally useless as far as our discussion goes. Once material conditions are (edit: roughly*, it's doesn't seem to make an effort to account for poverty, etc., though at least it makes an effort to draw countries of similar levels of economic development, unlike your source) equalized you'll also find yourself very much incorrect. (http://amjmed.org/new-research-in-ajm-guns-do-not-make-a-nation-safer/)
It also claimed that gun control advocates were intellectually dishonest because they usually only counted gun-deaths in their analysis, though I earlier produced evidence that there was no connection between murders that did not involve firearms and gun concentration in an area, once material conditions had been accounted for.

GunFacts:

It did not contradict anything I said.

---

Thank you, Steven, though I'm not sure if it was worth your time.

I don't care if you were only talking about a certain area in the US where guns increased and homicide increased. As I stated before, the state of California ranks 41 in the US for the amount of the population that owns A firearm. And you know what's screwed up about California? They have the most gun laws and restrictions out of ANY state in the US, and they have the most shootings and deaths resulting from shootings in the US. So that contradicts two of your points: Gun Control leads to less shootings, and if you have more guns, more homicide. Because obviously, California has a lot less guns than the state of Wyoming! And you know what's nuts about Wyoming? 59% of their Population owns A firearm. They have almost NO gun restrictions, and open carry is very common among the population. AND, Wyoming has had ONE school shooting since 1992 resulting in FOUR deaths, where California has had 69 School shootings since 1992 resulting in 84 Deaths. There, I just debunked your "More Guns, More Homicide" theory.

Here's me rejecting that link you gave. Did you not just say that we are discussing the United States and gun control, not other parts of the world and gun control? If yes, then you just contradicted yourself.

You said that you rejected my source because they claimed Gun Control Advocates are intellectually dishonest? What do you think you are doing right now? You're making points, and when I debunk them, you deny what I came up with. All you're hearing is what you want to hear at the moment, and that's intellectual dishonesty: not seeing both sides of the story.

I'm pretty sure the only reason you're putting limits on my argument is because you can only win within that small margin. And if you read the actual website, at all, you would know that it was called JustFacts.com and the article was under Gun Control, not GunFacts. And yes it did contradict what you were saying about "increased firearms, increased homicide".

I can see the Gun Control Advocates side of the story. You guys see on TV, you read online about how a 20 year Old runs into a school with a fully loaded AR-15, and slaughters all these kids heartlessly, and without thinking. You guys see that the guns caused all these problems, and you think that the guns need to go. You feel convicted and you feel strong about this because it really hurts you very deeply.

This is where America gets off track. Gun Control Advocates blame the gun and say the gun needs to go. What about cars? Cars kill more people in a year than sporting rifles! What about doctors? More people die from medical malpractice in one year than sporting rifles do!

http://mckitterick.livejournal.com/730561.html

I could go on and on about this, but just read this /\

My question is, why do you keep rejecting my sources for just a couple things that are said within the page? Possibly because you can't face what else is said in the article.

The bottom line is, Gun Control does not work, Gun Control Will NOT work, and you're simply avoiding the truth.

[Vlerchan]

So that contradicts two of your points:
No, it doesn't.

I was discussing weighted averages. You're discussing unweighted outliers.

--

And school shootings are irrelevent to my point: my claims pertained to gun-murders overall and not just the big shootings.

Did you not just say that we are discussing the United States and gun control, not other parts of the world and gun control?
Yes, that's what I was originally attempting to discuss.

You tried to muddy the waters then by producing a source that discussed international rankings, which I countered, too.

You said that you rejected my source because they claimed Gun Control Advocates are intellectually dishonest?
Please quote where I made this claim. Thank you.

You're making points, and when I debunk them, you deny what I came up with.
I provide a counter-argument, which you proceed to not respond to, but rather prefer to make allegations in regards to intellectual dishonesty, etc.

I would appreciate if you addressed the counter-arguments now.

I'm pretty sure the only reason you're putting limits on my argument is because you can only win within that small margin.
Please outline the limits I tried to place on your argument. Thank you.

And if you read the actual website, at all, you would know that it was called JustFacts.com and the article was under Gun Control, not GunFacts.
I apologise for my typo. I'll spend more time reading the URLs of sites you give me in the future.

And yes it did contradict what you were saying about "increased firearms, increased homicide".
Please quote where it contradicts what I said. Thank you.

I'd also prefer links to the source material.

You guys see on TV, you read online about how a 20 year Old runs into a school with a fully loaded AR-15, and slaughters all these kids heartlessly, and without thinking.
I haven't mentioned school shootings once.

You guys see that the guns caused all these problems, and you think that the guns need to go.
I claimed earlier that I don't believe that guns "cause" the problem.
I haven't once proposed banning all guns.

This is where America gets off track.
No, this is where you start attacking the strawman you constructed.

Gun Control Advocates blame the gun and say the gun needs to go.
This is the strawman.

Cars kill more people in a year than sporting rifles!
Cars also serve a purpose beyond killing people, and perform a useful function within society.

You will however find books of regulations in regards to producing and selling cars.

More people die from medical malpractice in one year than sporting rifles do!
Doctors also serve a purpose beyond killing people, and perform a useful function within society

You'll also find that there's books of regulations in regards to providing medical care, etc.

My question is, why do you keep rejecting my sources for just a couple things that are said within the page?
I outlined why I rejected your sources.

Feel free to respond to what I said in regards to your sources, something which you're still yet to do.

The bottom line is, Gun Control does not work, Gun Control Will NOT work, and you're simply avoiding the truth.
As you have so conclusively shown?

---

Guns don't kill people, madmen and obesity and disease do.

Cars. They kill 34,485 people in the US per year, or about 94 people per day. Around the world, cars kill 260,000 per year - the leading cause of children's deaths worldwide. Safety rules in the US have much improved passenger and even pedestrian survival, so perhaps this could serve as a model.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Alzheimer's disease. This kills 82,435 people per year in the US, or about 226 people per day. I'm all for banning it, but good luck.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Better yet, let's ban Death. In the US, The Grim Reaper kills 2,507,000 per year, or about 6,868 people per day - several times as much as obesity alone. In fact, Death eventually claims everyone. Why aren't our tax dollars going into robot-body and brain-upload research so we needn't worry about physical death? Where are the protests demanding brain-backups for everyone?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

It's "False Analogy" for that whole section, I'm just not bothered repeating myself again and again.

Because there are a lot more dangers out there that can harm us, and once we start handing over more power to power structures, once we start choosing perceived safety or even comfort over freedom and the ability to exercise our creative energies, we as a species begin to wither.
I noticed that the writer never discussed how being allowed to possess a weapon aided him in expressing his creative energies.

I'm willing to bet because it doesn't.

But what's next? Should we ban automobiles? We ought to, because in the hands of human beings they kill a lot more Americans than guns in the hands of madmen. How about doughnuts? Sugar-and-wheat junk-foods are bigger killers than anything else. If so, then why not ban inactivity? Even a Chocolate-Frosted-Sugar-Bombs addict can maintain a certain level of health by staying physically active, so let's ban that!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

He's really into this, isn't he?

I am much more concerned about the "USA Patriot Act," indefinite detentions, government programs like Guantanamo Bay prison, and the Utah Data Center than I am about getting shot by a madman with a gun.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

This does not mean there's no social benefit to gun control.

Argument 1: Guns Don't Kill People, People Do
See: my previous responses on the issue.

Argument 2: Hunting
I'm fine with registered members of registered hunting clubs being able to access hunting rifles.

Argument 3: Bad Governments
Not a reasonable argument.

Argument 4: The End of the World
Not a reasonable argument.

Argument 5: Practicality
I don't want to ban all guns, so irrelevent.

Argument 6: My Experience with Bad Guys
It's almost like tazers, and other non-lethal weapons, aren't available, or something. You might be able to argue for shotguns in this instance, though I'm of the opinion he would have been fine with a non-lethal weapon.

We need to work on our nation's individual and overall mental health, not remove rights from good people.
I agree that more should be done with helping people than eroding gun rights, as I said earlier.

Even taking away all the guns (even if we could) wouldn't stop violent and evil people like the man who stabbed 20+ children and teachers in a Chinese school the other day;
This doesn't mean there wouldn't be a social benifit from gun control.

it would just ensure that law-abiding folks could not defend themselves against such violent criminals.
If we pretend that gun-use are the only means in which one might defend themselves.