America's Gun Violence

Go Beavers

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives? And are you sure people don't use guns in the U.K.? http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives?

And this is where honesty needs to be a main role in the gun debate, and it's where the pro-gun side starts to look foolish. We don't need to start comparing the gun homicide rate in Europe to the US, because you alteady know what it says. People who want to harm others, and have easy access to guns, will harm more people. Fact.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives?

And this is where honesty needs to be a main role in the gun debate, and it's where the pro-gun side starts to look foolish. We don't need to start comparing the gun homicide rate in Europe to the US, because you alteady know what it says. People who want to harm others, and have easy access to guns, will harm more people. Fact.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Gern Blansten

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives?

And this is where honesty needs to be a main role in the gun debate, and it's where the pro-gun side starts to look foolish. We don't need to start comparing the gun homicide rate in Europe to the US, because you alteady know what it says. People who want to harm others, and have easy access to guns, will harm more people. Fact.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Do you really consider this an unbiased source? The gun bans are generally put in place because a problem is growing.

It's just common sense that we should make guns as hard as possible for criminals to obtain. Registration and stronger background checks won't be perfect...people will still get murdered...that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.

polaris_x

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives?

And this is where honesty needs to be a main role in the gun debate, and it's where the pro-gun side starts to look foolish. We don't need to start comparing the gun homicide rate in Europe to the US, because you alteady know what it says. People who want to harm others, and have easy access to guns, will harm more people. Fact.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/does-gun-control-encourage-crime_b_7917684.html

anyone can google a link to suit your biases ... pretty easy these days - especially when one is willing to post articles from gun lobbyist websites as "proof" ...

mace1229

I too have a hard time accepting a source that can't even get the first sentence grammatically correct before posting it.
"Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up."

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives?

And this is where honesty needs to be a main role in the gun debate, and it's where the pro-gun side starts to look foolish. We don't need to start comparing the gun homicide rate in Europe to the US, because you alteady know what it says. People who want to harm others, and have easy access to guns, will harm more people. Fact.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

And you putting this link up is emblematic of how the pro gun side fails in their approach. Your link fails in it's corellation and conveniently ignores the last six to eight years of data. It's just not an honest approach. I'd rather hear why you think the gun homicide rates are so much lower in western Europe and Canada than some lame link.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

If that's true, why do "mad" people in the UK choose to use knives over guns?

Or why did the French attackers choose to use guns instead of knives?

And this is where honesty needs to be a main role in the gun debate, and it's where the pro-gun side starts to look foolish. We don't need to start comparing the gun homicide rate in Europe to the US, because you alteady know what it says. People who want to harm others, and have easy access to guns, will harm more people. Fact.

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

And you putting this link up is emblematic of how the pro gun side fails in their approach. Your link fails in it's corellation and conveniently ignores the last six to eight years of data. It's just not an honest approach. I'd rather hear why you think the gun homicide rates are so much lower in western Europe and Canada than some lame link.

Because Chicago doesn't reside in those two countries? I'd love to hear how you can make an apples to apples comparison between those countries and the US and how their data is collected.

Go Beavers

You're referencing how a city deals with guns when that city is within a country that has easy access to guns and also a city that touches a neighboring state with a reputation for even easier ways to get a gun?

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

You're referencing how a city deals with guns when that city is within a country that has easy access to guns and also a city that touches a neighboring state with a reputation for even easier ways to get a gun?

I'm also referencing a city that has out of control gang activity and some of the most strict gun laws in the country.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

You're referencing how a city deals with guns when that city is within a country that has easy access to guns and also a city that touches a neighboring state with a reputation for even easier ways to get a gun?

I'm also referencing a city that has out of control gang activity and some of the most strict gun laws in the country.

So a city's gun laws can be rendered fairly useless when it's in a country with lax guns laws. That should be the take away.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

You're referencing how a city deals with guns when that city is within a country that has easy access to guns and also a city that touches a neighboring state with a reputation for even easier ways to get a gun?

I'm also referencing a city that has out of control gang activity and some of the most strict gun laws in the country.

So a city's gun laws can be rendered fairly useless when it's in a country with lax guns laws. That should be the take away.

Or a city's gun laws are rendered useless when there are a bunch of people that are lawless living there or when there is high competition to corner illicit drugs markets.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

You're referencing how a city deals with guns when that city is within a country that has easy access to guns and also a city that touches a neighboring state with a reputation for even easier ways to get a gun?

I'm also referencing a city that has out of control gang activity and some of the most strict gun laws in the country.

So a city's gun laws can be rendered fairly useless when it's in a country with lax guns laws. That should be the take away.

Or a city's gun laws are rendered useless when there are a bunch of people that are lawless living there or where there is high competition for illicit drugs markets.

That's not really an "or" though. Those are the people getting the guns illegally because it's easy to do so. It would be like if Gary , IN sold legal weed and Chicago made even harsher sentencing for it.

PJPOWER

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

polaris_x

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

PJPOWER

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

Lol, wow, that GMO piece must have ruffles some feathers. Links, sources? Where is this objective research you elude to that is from a non-partisan/biased source? The Greenpiece article that I think you are referring to is actually spot on, and people that blindly throw their money to them display an ability to think critically but that is a whole other thread.

polaris_x

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

Lol, wow, that GMO piece must have ruffles some feathers. Links, sources? Where is this objective research you elude to that is from a non-partisan/biased source? The Greenpiece article that I think you are referring to is actually spot on, and people that blindly throw their money to them display an ability to think critically but that is a whole other thread.

dude ... go check out that thread ... your lobbyist funded piece held no water ...

PJPOWER

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

Lol, wow, that GMO piece must have ruffles some feathers. Links, sources? Where is this objective research you elude to that is from a non-partisan/biased source? The Greenpiece article that I think you are referring to is actually spot on, and people that blindly throw their money to them display an ability to think critically but that is a whole other thread.

dude ... go check out that thread ... your lobbyist funded piece held no water ...

"Lobbyist funded piece" from sciencealert.com? If anything, they are left leaning.

mace1229

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

It isn't unreasonable someone brings it up. Many cities and states with strict gun laws do have higher crime, that is a fact. so it is not unrealistic for someone to look at that data at the surface and say California is one of the strongest gun laws in the country, but LA has one of the highest crime rates.
But I agree it isn't a good argument. You have to look deeper into the politics. Why are so many gun laws here? In many cases gun laws were written to try and reduce the violence. And when the violence level remained the same, the new gun laws sometimes get blamed for it. Strict gun laws happen to be in places of high crime, but I don't think they cause the crime.